Skip to main content

Full text of "Assessing suicide hotline volunteers' empathy and motivations"

See other formats


ASSESSING SUICIDE HOTLINE VOLUNTEERS' 
EMPATHY AND MOTIVATIONS 



By 

MICHELLE LEE BARZ 



A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT 

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 

2001 



To my parents - 
with love and appreciation 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
First and foremost, I would like to voice my deepest appreciation of Dr. Paul 
Schauble, my doctoral committee chair. His support, understanding, and guidance were 
essential in the undertaking and completion of this dissertation. Paul exemplifies not 
only a true scientist/practitioner, but also a person of the highest quality, integrity and 
inner strength. He will always be a great source of inspiration for me. I would also like 
to thank the members of my committee: Dr. Martin Heesacker, who provided helpful 
research design, statistical guidance, and insightful comments; Dr. Marshall Knudson, for 
all his support, encouragement, teaching and access to the best participants a researcher 
could desire; Dr. David Miller, for being a first-rate statistics teaeher and for asking 
helpful questions to strengthen this study; Dr. Barbara Probert for her insightful 
suggestions and warm encouragement; and Dr. Robert Ziller for his helpful input and 
perspective on the beginnings of empathy. Kudos to Jim Probert, past fellow trainer, who 
remembers what it is like to be a student. His encouragement, support and helpful 
suggestions through the data collection and beyond are appreciated. I thank Wendy 
Marsh for her assistance with data collection, Teraesa Vinson for her willingness to help 
a "stranger," and Jim McNulty for statistical assistance. I give heartfelt gratitude to my 
dear friend Mary Pedersen for her time, friendship and support. To the Crisis Center 
staff, whom I admire deeply, thank you. I am grateful to all of the Crisis Center staff, 
volunteers and trainees, who give of themselves in countless ways to help others. 



in 



Finally, to my parents and my husband Stuart, I give very special thanks for continually 
providing me with the time, love, faith and encouragement to achieve my goals. 






IV 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

page 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii 

LIST OF TABLES vii 

ABSTRACT viii 

CHAPTERS 

1 INTRODUCTION 1 

Crisis Intervention Volunteers 2 

Empathy 4 

Motivations of Volunteers 6 

Current Study 8 

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9 

Contemporary Perspectives on Empathy 9 

Motivations 15 

Prosocial Behavior Versus Altruism 15 

Relationship Between Altruism and Empathy 16 

Evaluation of Effectiveness 18 

Empathic Skills 18 

Professionals Versus Nonprofessionals 19 

Effects of Training and Experience 20 

Volunteers 22 

Characteristics of Volunteers 23 

Volunteer Motivations 24 

Relationship Between Volunteer Motivations and Abilities 27 

Summary 28 

Current Study 28 

Hypotheses 29 

Key Definitions 30 



3 METHOD 



.32 



Design 32 

Participants 33 

Instruments 34 

Empathy 34 

Scales used 34 

Other scales considered , • • • 38 

Motivation 4 

Procedure 43 

Control Group 43 

Training Group 43 

Volunteer Group 44 

Statistical Analyses 46 

4 RESULTS 47 

Descriptive Statistics 47 

Hypothesis 1 ^1 

Hypothesis 2 *4 

Hypothesis 3 " 

Additional Analyses " 

5 DISCUSSION 59 

Hypothesis 1 60 

Hypothesis 2 62 

Hypothesis 3 "4 

Consideration of Gender Differences 65 

Study Limitations 67 

Implications for Future Research 68 

Conclusion 70 

APPENDICES 

A INFORMED CONSENT 72 

B INSTRUCTIONS 74 

C INSTRUMENTS 75 

LIST OF REFERENCES 79 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 90 



VI 



LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

Table 4-1. Means and Standard Deviations of Variables Measured 48 

Table 4-2. Frequencies of the Measured Variables 50 

Table 4-3. Mean Ages in the Three Study Groups 51 

Table 4-4. Group Differences in Mean Age 51 

Table 4-5. Group Means on the Empathy Measures 53 

Table 4-6. Group Differences in Empathy 53 

Table 4-7. Correlations Among Experience, Age and Empathy 55 

Table 4-8. Gender Differences on Measures of Empathy and Motivation 58 



vn 



Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School 
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the 
- Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

ASSESSING SUICIDE HOTLINE VOLUNTEERS' 
EMPATHY AND MOTIVATIONS 

By 

Michelle Lee Barz 

May 2001 

Chairman: Paul G. Schauble 
Major Department: Psychology 

Suicide is a major mental health problem. Consequently, suicide prevention 

agencies have become very important in helping communities deal with this crisis. 

Volunteers are often the backbone of suicide prevention and crisis intervention agencies, 

and their effectiveness is critical to the services that these agencies provide. This study 

investigated general therapeutic empathy and motivations for engaging in helping 

behavior among suicide hotline volunteers. The study consisted of three groups: trained 

crisis center volunteers (with varying levels of experience), crisis center applicants 

accepted for volunteer training, and a control group similar in age, background and 

education. By using questionnaires, I measured differences in empathy and in motivation 

for volunteering among the groups. I used a nonequivalent control groups design. It was 

hypothesized that paraprofessionals volunteering at a suicide/crisis intervention agency 

would exhibit more empathy in the form of perspective-taking and empathic 

understanding than would untrained individuals, but they would display less empathy as 

viii 



their length of experience increased compared to less experienced volunteers. It was also 
hypothesized that volunteers would display higher levels of altruistic motivation than 
would a nontrained control group. 

The first hypothesis, that trained volunteers would exhibit greater empathy than 
the trainees or the control group, was supported. The second hypothesis, that an inverse 
relationship would exist between crisis volunteers' length of experience and amount of 
empathy, was not supported. A significant positive correlation was found between length 
of experience volunteering and levels of empathic understanding. The variable of 
experience was windsorized in order to correct for extreme values (outliers) in the data 
set. The third hypothesis, that crisis volunteers would exhibit higher levels of altruistic 
motivation than the control group, was not supported. The volunteer group had the 
lowest mean score for altruistic motivation of the three groups studied. Overall results 
indicated that crisis intervention volunteers, especially those with more experience, have 
effective empathic skills. Results lend support for the use of trained volunteers in suicide 
prevention/crisis intervention agencies. The findings also suggest that attempts to retain 
volunteers over longer periods would be beneficial to the agency. Reasons for 
volunteering consisted of both altruistic and egoistic motivations, and results indicate that 
volunteers can be effective regardless of their reasons for volunteering. 



IX 



CHAPTER 1 
INTRODUCTION 



Worldwide suicide rates have risen over the last five decades (Lester, 1993). In 
the United States, few would disagree that suicide continues to be a major mental health 
problem. In industrialized nations, it is among the top ten leading causes of death for 
people of all ages (Centers for Disease Control, 1985), and in the United States, it is the 
third leading cause of death for individuals aged 15-24 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 
1996). These statistics are supported by the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance study 
conducted by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) researchers, who found 
that 13% of all deaths among young adults (ages 10-24) result from suicide (Kann et al., 
1998). Nationwide, these same researchers found that 21% of students in grades 9-12 
had seriously considered suicide during the 12 months preceding the survey. 

Even more alarming is that suicide is probably underreported and thus statistics 
underestimate the true incidence of suicide. Although it is well accepted in the literature 
on suicide that suicidal ideation is an important risk factor related to future suicide 
attempts, Rudd (1989) provided evidence that the true magnitude of the incidence of 
suicidal thoughts and behavior is not accurately estimated from national suicide figures. 
Some researchers suggest that inaccurate estimates are also due to a lack of standard 
nomenclature for referring to suicide-related behaviors (O'Carroll et al., 1996). In 
addition, it is estimated that 30% to 40% of individuals who completed suicide made at 
least one prior suicide attempt (Maris, 1992). 

1 



Crisis and suicide intervention services have proliferated rapidly in the last 
several decades (Daigle & Mishara, 1995). This phenomenon may be a response to the 
increasing numbers of individuals considering suicide, alarming death rates, and the fact 
that suicide attempters are more likely than nonattempters to cope by relying on others to 
solve problems rather than on themselves (Orbach, Bar- Joseph, & Dror, 1990). The 
modem crisis center movement developed out of the community mental health 
philosophy of the 1960s and 1970s, and by the mid-70s, there were over 500 telephone 
crisis centers in the United States (Stein & Lambert, 1984). 

Crisis Intervention Volunteers 
In general, human service agencies rely on significant numbers of volunteers to 
serve their client populations (Miller, Powell, & Seltzer, 1990); crisis intervention and 
suicide prevention centers are no different. The shortage of mental health professionals 
in many parts of the country has necessitated this use of volunteers, the majority of whom 
are non- or paraprofessionals (Rosenbaum & Calhoun, 1977). In fact, Seely (1992) 
points out that crisis and suicide prevention agencies often have paraprofessionals as the 
backbone of their services. Miller, Coombs, Leeper, and Barton (1984) found an 
association between suicide prevention facilities and a reduction of suicide in young 
white females (the most prevalent users of such agencies). The authors suggest that 
research should focus on attempting to analyze factors that are responsible for this 
reduction. One factor in reducing suicides is crisis counselor effectiveness. In fact, the 
growing crisis center movement was supported by the belief that volunteers could be 
effective crisis counselors, This belief grew out of the influential work of researchers in 
the 1960s (e.g., Litman, Farberow, Shneidman, Helig, & Kramer, 1965; Shneidman, 



Farberow, & Litman, 1961) who pioneered the use of nonprofessionals in suicide 
prevention. They outlined the specific duties of crisis center workers: to build rapport 
and secure communication; to evaluate potential danger to the caller, including suicide 
lethality; and to formulate an action plan to mobilize the caller's available resources 
(Fowler & McGee, 1973). However, given the prevalence of suicide, as well as the 
numerous suicide risk assessment instruments available (see recent reviews by Gutierrez, 
Osman, Kopper, Barrios, & Bagge, 2000; Range & Knott, 1997), it is somewhat 
surprising that empirical assessments of the effectiveness of paraprofessionals in suicide 
intervention agencies have not kept pace (Frankish, 1994; Neimeyer & Pfeiffer, 1994). 

McGee and Jennings (1973) cite experts in crisis intervention and suieide 
prevention, such as Robert Litman, Edwin Shneidman, and Norman Farberow, to explain 
why nonprofessionals, at times, may be better than professionals in providing crisis 
services. They suggest that the lack of professional armor and sophisticated categorical 
approaches to psychopathology would enable nonprofessionals to connect more 
effectively with those in crisis. Their findings (and other studies) are explored in more 
depth in the literature review section of this study. However, other than a few studies 
(e.g., Homes & Howard, 1980; Knickerbocker & McGee, 1973; McGee & Jennings, 
1973), very little research has focused specifically on the difference between 
professionals and paraprofessionals in crisis/suicide intervention effectiveness. 

The trend of incorporating volunteer and paraprofessional workers into the 
treatment of diverse emotional problems has even been referred to as the "third revolution 
in mental health" (Tapp & Spanier, 1973, p. 245). These paraprofessionals offer clients 
advice, counseling, information, or simply empathic listening. Since crisis situations tend 



to be time-limited, here-and-now problems, it appears that the ability to convey warmth 
and personal interest, as well as to provide some direction, may be more central to 
successful crisis intervention than professional training (which often includes therapeutic 
dogma and efforts to probe past experience and personality problems). Two questions 
emerge, however, with respect to paraprofessionals providing crisis intervention: how 
effective are these individuals (i.e., can they provide adequate empathy to establish a 
therapeutic relationship with individuals in crisis) and what motivates individuals to 
volunteer to be part of this "third revolution?" 

Empathy 
Empatheia, a term coined by the early Greeks, suggests affection and passion, 
with a quality of suffering. The Latin equivalent, largely borrowed from the Greek word, 
is pathos, which means feeling-perception. More modern usage of empathy, however, 
came closer to the concept of knowing someone through entering his or her lived world 
and feeling an awareness of his or her experience. This concept of knowing someone 
was called Einfiihlung, a word initially used in German aesthetics (Davis, 1994). Alfred 
Adler (1931), one of the pioneers of psychoanalysis, proposed this more modern view 
and asserted that treatment can only be successful if the helper is genuinely interested in 
the person being helped. He suggested that the primary method to convey this genuine 
interest is through seeing, hearing, and experiencing the world through the other person. 
This idea, however, does not distinguish empathy from sympathetic identification. Carl 
Rogers (1957) brought this distinction into prominence with his classical paper on 
conditions of therapeutic personality change and his well-known "as if condition of 
experience. 



Research on and interest in empathy surged in the 1960s and 1970s when Carl 
Rogers (1957) proposed his "necessary and sufficient therapeutic conditions." By then, 
Truax and his colleagues (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967; Truax & Mitchell, 1971) 
accumulated evidence that suggested correlations between empathy and therapeutic 
outcome. In fact, more research attention has been focused on the construct of empathy 
than on any other variable posited as relevant to the therapeutic process (Patterson, 1984). 
Inconsistencies in the research, however, led many researchers to conclude that sufficient 
empirical support was lacking (see review by Patterson, 1984). On one hand, many 
therapists saw empathy as important (in terms of being warm and supportive). On the 
other hand, the stronger contention of empathy as a central ingredient to therapeutic 
change was generally not accepted (Bohart & Greenberg, 1997). Consequently, research 
on empathy in the 1980s dropped dramatically. 

Bohart and Greenberg point out that we live in a "paradoxical age" with respect to 
empathy. On one side, empathy has again emerged as an important topic of study in 
areas such as social and developmental psychology. Numerous popular books argue that 
"emotional intelligence," which includes empathy, may be even more important than IQ 
(Goleman, 1995, 1998). In addition, empathy training is now being used in various areas, 
including schools, business, and medicine. However, despite evidence that the 
therapeutic relationship is the best predictor of success in therapy, and that Rogers' work 
on relational conditions specifies that empathy is one of the key ingredients in creating a 
therapeutic relationship, "opinions in academic psychology as well as the influence of 
managed care often minimize the importance of the relationship in therapy, treating it as 



a background variable and assuming all clinicians know how to establish a therapeutic 
relationship" (Bohart & Greenberg, 1997, p. 3). 

Recently however, interest in empathy has resurged, and numerous researchers 
believe that empathy demands to become a major focus of psychological research (for 
example, Barrett-Lennard, 1993; Bohart & Greenberg, 1997; Davis, 1994; Duan & Hill, 
1996; Hart, 1999; Iekes, 1997; and Orlinski, Grawe, & Parks, 1994). The resurgence of 
interest in empathy, the numerous arguments for a need to return to studying empathy, 
and the diversity of ways empathy can be conceptualized all prompted this author to 
examine empathy in the current study. 

Motivations of Volunteers 

People who volunteer to provide crisis intervention and suicide prevention 

services should possess at least minimal levels of effective, therapeutic empathy. But do 

all people with empathic skills volunteer their time in crisis intervention agencies? Of 

course not. The question then is why do people volunteer to work in crisis/suicide 

prevention settings? There is very little in the literature about what motivates individuals 

to volunteer to work specifically in crisis intervention agencies. This is surprising given 

the fact that so many crisis agencies rely on volunteers as the backbone of their existence 

and services. Clary and Snyder (1991) suggest good reasons to study volunteers' 

motivations: 

The questions that arise in thinking about volunteer work as . . . 
[voluntary], sustained and nonspontaneous help are fundamentally 
motivational in nature. That is, they ask about the motives that are 
involved when one decides whether to commit oneself to an ongoing 
task and then must regularly decide whether or not to continue to 
participate in it. (p. 123) 



By understanding the motivations behind people's volunteer efforts, we can better 
understand why they volunteer and what keeps them volunteering. In other words, 
inquiring about motivations that dispose individuals to volunteer and to sustain their 
volunteer involvement over time may help us better understand how crisis intervention 
agencies can best attract and retain volunteers. 

Volunteers provide necessary crisis intervention and suicide prevention services, 
but how do agencies come by this invaluable resource? Why would people knowingly 
commit their time and energy, not to mention undergo intense feelings and emotions 
themselves, in order to help others deal with crises and/or a desire to die? Are these 
individuals somehow more altruistic than those who do not volunteer? Staffer (1968) 
asserts that some people are more inherently helpful than others, and one can surmise that 
individuals who display high levels of empathy may also volunteer for more altruistic 
reasons. Some developmental researchers have studied the relationship between empathy 
and prosocial behavior, such as altruism (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987a, 1987b), or how 
empathy can lead to the development and practice of altruism (Hoffman, 1987). Is the 
empathy that might motivate individuals to volunteer in crisis intervention settings simple 
altruism or are there more egoistic factors at work? Wiehe and Isenhour (1977) found 
that personal satisfaction was seen as the most important motivation for people's interest 
in serving as a volunteer. This finding has obvious implications for agencies that require 
volunteers. Crisis service agencies typically require more extensive training and 
supervision than other volunteer agencies. However, the payoff in the end may be greater 
for both the volunteer and the agency. Tasks requiring greater effort, specific skills, good 



8 

judgment, emotional involvement and creativity may produce a more satisfied volunteer, 
which in turn may have effects on the volunteer's length of service to the agency. 

People volunteer at crisis and suicide prevention agencies for many reasons, not 
all of them selfless. For example, psychology students may volunteer in order to acquire 
clinical skills and experience that can be included in their curriculum vitas or to gain 
information about career possibilities. Others may volunteer to increase their self- 
understanding in order to enhance personal growth. Still others may volunteer because 
they have friends who are either volunteering or already have involvement with an 
agency. However, the fact remains that crisis intervention and suicide prevention 
agencies rely on the belief, however idealistic, that volunteers within a community will 
come forward, with a willingness to invest their time and themselves, in order to achieve 
meaningful human interactions (Probert & Fogel, 1997). With a better understanding of 
why people volunteer to provide crisis intervention and suicide-prevention services, 
perhaps crisis agencies could be even more effective in recruiting and retaining 
volunteers. 

Current Study 
This study examines two important variables in crisis intervention and suicide- 
prevention volunteers: their levels of empathy and their motivation for volunteering. 
The question as to whether volunteers' level of empathy increases or decreases with 
experience is addressed, as is the question of whether volunteers are motivated to become 
involved in crisis service agencies for altruistic or egoistic reasons. 



CHAPTER 2 
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 



This chapter begins with an overview of empathy and motivations for helping. 
Next, a review of crisis intervention and suicide prevention effectiveness in service 
providers is presented. A look at volunteers then follows, including the relationship 
between paraprofessionals' abilities and their motivations for helping others. At the end 
of the literature review, the purpose of the current study is presented. The chapter 
concludes with the specific research questions to be studied as well as key definitions. 

Contemporary Perspectives on Empathy 
Godfrey T. Barrett-Lennard, one of the pioneers of empathy research, studied 
interpersonal relationships for over four decades (e.g., Barrett-Lennard, 1959, 1963, 
1976, 1978, 1981, 1986, 1993). He began his work as a student of Carl Rogers at the 
University of Chicago, when Rogers (1957) first circulated his classic formulation of the 
"necessary and sufficient conditions of therapy." At the time, no means existed for 
measuring each of the posited relationship conditions, nor was it clear what kind of 
design might be both feasible and effective. It was from this context that Barrett-Lennard 
began to develop the underpinnings of his original Relationship Inventory for his doctoral 
dissertation research (see Barrett-Lennard, 1962, 1993). The Relationship Inventory, an 
instrument used to measure empathic understanding, congruence, level of regard, and 
unconditionality of regard, is discussed in Chapter 3 of this study. The Relationship 

9 



10 

Inventory is based on the proposition that therapeutic personality changes occur in 
proportion to the degree that a client experiences certain qualities in the therapist's 
response to the client 

Although all therapeutic conditions are important, this study primarily focused on 
the condition of empathy. Barrett-Lennard ( 1 976) suggests that for empathic 
understanding to occur, it is not essential for the person who is being empathized with to 
be literally present. Stated another way, a person may be empathized with through an 
audio- or videotape recording, or perhaps through written words or other expressive or 
artistic acts, without being present. If physically present (but not attending to the 
empathizing person), the person being empathized with could be understood empathically 
without realizing it, since empathic understanding refers to a process that is occurring in 
the empathizing person (Barrett-Lennard, 1981). Therefore, as Barrett-Lennard (1976) 
states, "empathic understanding or empathic knowing, is first and foremost an inner 
experience" (p. 175, italics in original). Broadly stated, empathy is concerned with 
responsively knowing the moment-to-moment experience of another. 

Three main phases in a complete empathic process are distinguished by 
Barrett-Lennard (1981, 1993): (a) reception and resonation by the listener, (b) expressive 
communication of this responsive awareness by the empathizing person (listener), and 
(c) received empathy (or the awareness of being understood). Although Barrett-Lennard 
systematically illuminates interpersonal empathy as a multi-stage process occurring 
within and between individuals, he stresses that it is a subtle, complex, and multifaceted 
phenomenon. The phases he suggests are not a single, closed system and do not 
necessarily occur in predictable steps. In fact, considerable discrepancy is possible 



11 

among the inner resonation, communication (expression) and reception phases; and at 
each stage, considerable latitude exists for empathy to occur. 

Davis (1994) suggested that the nature of empathy continues to be a matter of 
some disagreement. Specifically, he believed that the term empathy actually refers to 
two distinctly Separate phenomena: affective reactivity and cognitive role-taking. This is 
similar to Hoffman's (1984, 1987) theoretical framework of empathy which includes 
cognitive role-taking and affective responding to others' situations. The affective 
response dimension can be distinguished further into feelings of sympathy or concern for 
others and feelings of personal distress produced by others' distress. 

Davis proposed an organizational model of empathy-related constructs that makes 
clear the differences and similarities between empathy's various constructs based on an 
inclusive definition of empathy. The constructs include both processes taking place in 
the person empathizing and the outcomes that result from these processes. Similar to 
Barrett-Lennard's (1981, 1993) conception of a listener (who empathizes) and a receiver, 
Davis (1994) proposed that the typical empathy "episode" consists of an observer (e.g., 
the listener) being exposed in some way to a target (e.g., the receiver) and then 
responding (either cognitively, affectively or behaviorally). 

Davis' model is different from Barrett-Lennard's conception, however, in that 
Davis expands the definition of the empathic process. He identifies four related 
constructs within this typical episode: antecedents (person or situation characteristics), 
processes (mechanisms that generate empathic outcomes), intrapersonal outcomes (both 
affective and cognitive responses produced in the observer as a result of exposure to the 
target), and interpersonal outcomes (overt behavioral responses to the target). Davis' 



12 

model hypothesized associations between the constructs, and he suggested that stronger 
relationships exist between constructs that are adjacent (e.g., between antecedents and 
processes) than those that are not adjacent (e.g., between antecedents and interpersonal 
outcomes). Although Davis' (1994) model borrowed its framework somewhat from 
Hoffman (1984) and Staub (1987), he argued that his model allows for examination of 
empathy in a multidimensional fashion that accounts for similar outcomes (e.g., helping 
behavior) through a multitude of person characteristics and processes (e.g., perceptions, 
associations, affective reactions and cognitions). 

Changming Duan's (2000) findings supported Davis' contention that empathy is 
multidimensional. Duan found that a distinction can be made between intellectual 
empathy (the extent to which an observer takes the perspective of the target) and 
empathic emotion (the extent to which the observer feels the target's emotions) and that 
the two types of empathy may correlate in certain situations. Bohart and Greenberg 
(1997) argued that empathy's multiple dimensions include "... a cognitive or 
understanding dimension, ... an affective or experiential dimension, . . . action [or a] 
communication [dimension], ... a way of being together in relationships, ... [and] 
interpersonal confirmation or validation" (p. 419, italics in original). 

The argument that empathy research is best served by adopting a 
multidimensional approach to the overall construct is convincing (see Davis, 1983b) and 
his empathy measure, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980) reflects this 
multidimensionality. The empathy measure, discussed in Chapter 3 of this study, 
includes measures of perspective-taking (cognitive role-taking), fantasy (identification 
with characters in movies, novels, plays, and other fictional situations), empathic concern 



13 

(feelings of warmth, compassion and concern for others) and personal distress (feelings 
of discomfort and anxiety resulting from others' distress). There has been a call in the 
literature for more comprehensive approaches to studying and measuring empathy (e.g., 
Chlopan, McCain, Carbonell, & Hagen, 1985; Duan & Hill, 1996), especially in terms of 
its multifaceted nature (e.g., Strayer, 1987) and in terms of therapy and helping (Bohart & 
Greenberg, 1997; Hall, Davis, & Connelly, 2000). Davis' (1980) measure may partially 
meet this research need. 

Another prominent empathy researcher, William Ickes, is concerned primarily 
with empathic accuracy. He and his colleagues (Ickes, 1993; Ickes, Stinson, Bissonnette, 
& Garcia, 1990) defined empathic accuracy as "the ability to accurately infer the specific 
content of other people's thoughts and feelings" (Ickes, 1997, p. 3). Although the study 
of empathic accuracy is still fairly new, its roots can be traced back over 50 years to the 
study of interpersonal perception. Most of Ickes' work differs from that of 
Barrett-Lennard's or Davis' in that he is less concerned with the reactions of a perceiver 
to emotion expressed by a target (for example, by exhibiting or reporting the same 
emotion or correctly identifying another's emotion through cues provided) than with how 
well an individual is able to "read" other people's thoughts and feelings. Empathic 
accuracy appears to put a greater demand on participants' inferential abilities (Graham & 
Ickes, 1997). In theory, empathic accuracy is most synonymous with empathic 
understanding; however, when operationally defined for empirical study, empathic 
accuracy must necessarily include empathic expression as well (Marangoni, Garcia, 
Ickes, & Teng, 1995). An innovative methodological approach developed by Ickes and 
his colleagues (Ickes, Bissonnette, Garcia, & Stinson, 1990; Ickes, Stinson et al., 1990; 



14 

Ickes & Tooke, 1988) in order to study empathic accuracy is described in Chapter 3 of 
this study. 

The research on empathic accuracy most relevant to the current study is the work 
by Marangoni et al. (1995) regarding empathic accuracy in client-therapist relationships 
(see also Ickes* Marangoni, & Garcia, 1997). They found that empathic accuracy 
improves with increased exposure to a person, feedback about a person's actual thoughts 
and feelings, and increasing the "readability" of the target person. They also found 
relatively stable individual differences in the consistency of a perceiver's empathic 
accuracy across different people. Ickes (1997) pointed out that these findings have clear 
implications for the selection and training of individuals in areas where empathic 
accuracy is an essential skill, and crisis intervention is certainly no exception. In addition 
to the importance of being able to use empathy accurately, Hall, Davis, and Connelly 
(2000) found a relationship between dispositional empathy and therapeutic effectiveness. 
This is one of the first studies to assess a personality measure of empathy (specifically 
empathic concern and perspective-taking ability) in psychologists and their satisfaction 
with therapy. 

Although there is disagreement about how best to define and operationalize 
empathy (Bohart & Greenberg, 1997), the construct of empathy has a long and 
distinguished history of theory and research in helping arenas. The eurrent resurgence of 
research into this interesting and important construct attests to the fact that the questions 
raised about empathy will cause it to remain a central focus for years to come. 



15 

Motivations 
Batson ( 1987, 1991), in his extensive reviews ofprosocial motivation and 
altruism, addressed the question of whether or not helping behavior is ever altruistic. He 
asserts that the dominant view in Western thought for the past four centuries, as well as in 
all major psychological views of motivation (including Freudian, behavioral, and even 
humanistic or "third force" theories), is that all prosocial behavior is ultimately motivated 
by some form of self-benefit. However, he also acknowledges an alternate view in 
Western thought: humans are capable of acting from unselfish motives. This alternate 
view suggests the existence of motivations directed toward the benefit of others as 
opposed to benefit to oneself. Although an exclusively egoistic view of motivation has 
been dominant in Western ideology, the term altruism has reappeared in contemporary 
psychology. 

Prosocial Behavior Versus Altruism 

According to Jane Piliavin and her associates (Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner, & 
Clark, 1981), prosocial behavior means "behavior that is positively evaluated against 
some normative standard applicable to interpersonal acts" (p. 4). Prosocial behavior can 
be distinguished from antisocial and nonsocial behavior, and its designation generally 
depends on both the culture in which the behavior occurs and the person making the 
judgment about the behavior. Davis (1994) calls prosocial behavior "helping behavior." 
His comprehensive review of the literature suggests that a distinction can be made 
between helping behavior and altruism, based on the motivation(s) underlying the act. 
Helping acts earned out in order to gain material rewards, social approval or internal 
rewards (such as pride), or to avoid social sanctions for failing to help or internal 



16 

punishment (such as guilt), would simply be helping behavior. Helping acts carried out 
solely for the purpose of benefiting or increasing the welfare of another would be deemed 
altruistic. Although one might argue that the outcome (that is, the overt behavior of 
helping another) is the same regardless of the underlying motivation, 'more recent 
theorizing ancfresearch has increasingly focused on questions of motivation . . . with the 
result that more sophisticated theoretical accounts and empirical techniques have 
evolved" (Davis, 1994, p. 129) to clarify the distinction between altruism and 
prosocial/helping behavior. 

Relationship Between Altruism and Empathy 

Many contemporary psychologists, including Martin Hoffman (1976, 1981, 1982, 

1987, 2000), Dennis Krebs (1975), Melvin Lerner (1982) and Norma Feshbach (1982), 

proposed that empathy is the basis for altruistic motivation. Krebs clarified the 

motivational distinction: 

Psychologists have manipulated various antecedents of helping behavior and 
studied their effects, and they have measured a number of correlated prosocial 
events; however, ... it is the extent of self-sacrifice, the expectation of gain, and 
the orientation to the needs of another that define acts as altruistic. . . . [We may] 
cast some light on the phenomenon of altruism by investigating the idea that 
empathic reactions mediate altruistic responses, (p. 1 134) 

Hoffman (1982) has studied altruistic motivation using a model that depends on 
the interaction between affective and cognitive processes that change with age. He states 
that "the basic concept in the model is empathy, defined as a vicarious affective response, 
that is, . . . [a] response that is more appropriate to someone else's situation than to one's 
own situation" (p. 281). Davis (1994), in his summary of reviews of the literature on 
empathy and altruism, found that reliable and significant positive associations exist 



17 

between empathy-related constructs and altruistic behavior. Indeed, Batson ( 1987, 1991) 
argued that the source of helping that is intended solely to benefit another (i.e., altruism) 
is the reactive emotional response of empathic concern. He and his colleagues conducted 
numerous experimental studies demonstrating a relationship between empathic concern 
and helping behavior, and they carefully and cleverly designed experiments in which a 
distinction between altruistic (sympathy-based) helping and egoistic (guilt-based) helping 
was built into the study (Batson et al., 1988). Essentially this was done by making some 
participants feel like a decision not to help was justified, thereby eliminating guilt as a 
motivating force to help. However, one could still argue that even though it is "justified" 
not to help another, a person might not feel that it is morally acceptable. Overall, though 
the research evidence has gone further to establish a link between empathy and altruism, 
it is not clear why such a relationship exists. 

Cialdini. Brown, Lewis, Luce, and Neuberg (1997) suggested that an alternative 
to the altruism-egoism debate regarding motivation to help others is the construct of 
"oneness," which they defined as "shared, merged or interconnected personal identities" 
(p.483). Essentially, oneness suggests that people help others because they feel more "at 
one with" those others. Cialdini et al. state that perceived oneness offers a nonaltruistic 
(though not an egoistic) alternative to previous research findings that attributed helping 
behavior to empathically driven altruistic motivation. Based on the explanations 
presented in the literature review, the debate about what motivates people to help others 
is not yet clearly decided, though thought-provoking studies continue to increase our 
knowledge about the empathy-altruism connection. 



18 

Evaluation of Effectiveness 
Two levels of evaluation strategies for suicide prevention services have emerged: 
macroanalytic assessments of outcomes for entire programs on suicide rates in 
communities, including client satisfaction; and microanalyses of crisis counselors' skill 
levels and/or their ability to provide effective help. This study is concerned with the 
latter analyses, typically assessed by rating either actual calls, simulated calls or 
roleplays, and by developing written tests of skills and knowledge. In one of the most 
recent reviews of suicide intervention effectiveness, Neimeyer and Pfeiffer (1994) 
examined both macro- and microevaluations. They pointed out that although a variety of 
research methodologies were used in the studies evaluating suicide intervention 
effectiveness, each methodology has both benefits and inherent limitations on the 
information obtained. 

Empathic Skills 

At the microanalytic level, several studies focused on the general Rogenan factors 
of warmth, empathy, and genuineness (e.g., Carothers & Inslee. 1974: Knickerbocker & 
McGee, 1973; Miller, Hedrick, & Orlofsky, 1991; Truax & Lister, 1971), assessing 
whether volunteers are able to provide the factors, with mixed results. These researchers 
generally used scales like Carkhuff s (1969). Such scales rate the ability of counselors to 
provide facilitative conditions, especially the Rogerian factors mentioned above. 
Carkhuff (1969) theorized that research results were partially confounded by the fact that 
the people who were rating facilitative effectiveness might not have functioned at high 
enough levels of the facilitative dimensions (especially empathy) themselves. Others 
(Duan & Hill, 1996) suggest that the diverse nature of empathy, and the lack of 



19 

distinction between different types of empathy, may also have confounded its study. 
However, difficulties in understanding or studying empathy should not preclude its 
empirical examination. After all. Linehan (1997) stressed that conveying empathic 
understanding with suicidal individuals is a critical component of theiapy. 

Professionals Versus Nonprofessionals 

McGee and Jennings (1973) discovered that many volunteer counselors were 
effective at becoming genuinely engaged with clients in crisis. They asserted that 
nonprofessionals sometimes might be even better suited than professionals for crisis 
intervention and suicide-prevention work. Nonprofessionals may naturally provide more 
connected, non-detached contact with clients in crisis, whereas professionals may have a 
more detached and categorical approach to what might be seen as psychopathology. In 
addition, Knott and Range (1998) found that nonprofessionals often hear from someone 
with suicidal intentions, are able to recognize signs of suicidality and are willing to help. 
This suggests that they might be more able than professionals to help suicidal individuals, 
in an informal setting, to explore alternatives other than suicide and to feel hopeful about 
the future. 

Knickerbocker and McGee (1973) compared "lay" volunteers working at a crisis 
center (who had undergone a phone counselor training course) with a group of 
professionals and graduate students preparing for professional psychology careers. Using 
multiple measures, the three groups were rated for empathy, warmth, and genuineness, 
considered in much of the literature as essential for therapeutic change. Across all three 
dimensions, the nonprofessional group scored as high as, or higher than, the two 
professional groups. All groups scored in the effective range on the dimensions. The 



20 

results have often been cited as justification for using trained lay volunteers in crisis 
center settings. 

Homes and Howard (1980) specifically studied both professional and 
paraprofessional crisis workers' ability to recognize suicide lethality factors. They 
developed the*Lethality Scale, a 13-item scale that contains questions about suicide- 
related factors such as age, gender, immediate stress, suicide plan and sleep disturbance. 
The items, which are in multiple choice format, were completed by different groups of 
professionals and paraprofessionals. Results indicated that general/family practice 
physicians were more aware of lethality factors than were psychiatrists, followed by 
psychologists, social workers, ministers and college students. A disturbing finding was 
that doctoral-level psychologists only recognized correct responses to about half of the 
items, masters-level social workers recognized fewer than half, and ministers recognized 
no more than college students! Although definite criteria for a "good" score were not 
specified, the findings do suggest that more training and/or experience are related to 
greater effectiveness. The results also indicate a need for improved training on suicide 
risk factors for both professionals and paraprofessionals alike if they are working with 
suicidal clients. 

Effects of Training and Experience 

Some studies involving roleplays have generally shown that phone counselors can 
provide better facilitative conditions with training and experience (France, 1975; Hart & 
King, 1979; Neimeyer & Pfeiffer, 1994). In these studies, the counselors actively 
participated in the roleplay situation. However, studies involving simulated calls made to 
crisis centers in which the phone counselors were not aware that the calls were simulated 



21 

have led researchers to conclude that crisis line counselors often do not reach minimum 
levels of therapeutic effectiveness (France, 1975; Genther, 1974; Neimeyer & Pfeiffer, 
1994; Stein & Lambert. 1984). The outcome of these studies suggests that when 
counselors are not aware that they are being assessed on their ability to provide 
facilitative conditions, their effectiveness is sub-par. Elkins and Cohen ( 1982), using 
independently developed scales, studied the effects of both training and experience on 
counseling skills, knowledge and dogmatic attitudes. The scales contained both written 
questions designed to measure attitudes and knowledge and hypothetical callers' 
statements that were used to elicit written responses. They found that volunteers' 
counseling skills and knowledge improved with training, but not with experience, and 
that attitudes were not affected by either training or experience. The research cited above 
indicates that while further training and experience can affect how well counselors 
provide facilitative conditions, such as empathy, the results are clearly mixed. 

Interestingly, some studies suggest that a counselor's length of experience is 
inversely related to empathic accuracy. Truax and Carkhuff (1967) argued that most 
psychotherapy training programs stress theory and client psychodynamics over how to 
create a facilitative relationship. The researchers emphasized that the skills of 
relationship building are of primary importance in training good therapists. If such skills 
are not continually emphasized, therapeutic empathy may diminish over time (even with 
increased therapeutic experience). In a study on the effects of extended, didactic training 
on the therapeutic functioning of professional psychology trainees, Carkhuff, Kratochvil, 
and Friel (1968) found that over the course of several years training, therapists' ability to 



22 

discriminate therapeutic conditions improved, while their ability to offer these conditions 
declined. 

Polenz and Verdi (1977) found that paraprofessionals' ability to discriminate and 
communicate facilitative conditions in psychotherapy were not affected by length of 
experience. Irl other words, paraprofessionals with more experience were no better 
functioning with respect to realizing and displaying empathy in therapy than 
paraprofessionals with less experience. In another study, no difference was found 
between newly trained and experienced paraprofessionals on facilitative conditions, 
although both were rated higher than untrained controls (O'Donnell & George, 1977). 
Therefore, the question remains as to whether crisis line workers with more experience 
would display lower levels of empathy than those with less experience. Indeed, Kalafat, 
Boroto, and France (1979) suggested that a complex relationship exists between 
performance of facilitative conditions, values and experience. Although there is a 
resurgence in stressing the significance of empathy, to date no research has investigated 
how effectively paraprofessionals trained to work in crisis intervention settings utilize 
their specific empathic skills (i.e., perspective-taking ability) or whether these skills 
decrease as their experience increases. 

Volunteers 
Volunteerism has existed for centuries, but formalized volunteer programs have 
arisen only recently (Ellis, 1985). Volunteerism, especially for college students, became 
popular in the 1960s and 1970s as more community service was encouraged through 
campus-based programs (Ellis, 1978). However, from the 1980s there has been a decline 
in volunteer involvement. Newman (1985) suggested that this decline may be partially 



23 

due to both individual and societal trends toward egocentrism and self-development. 
Others argued that social and economic forces are increasingly making volunteerism a 
luxury that can be undertaken only by the wealthy, and suggested that people are now 
seeking growth and self-satisfaction from their volunteer experiences in addition to the 
more traditionally hypothesized motivations of helping others (Henderson, 1985). 

Characteristics of Volunteers 

In their study on the personal characteristics of volunteer phone counselors, Tapp 
and Spanier (1973) concluded that mental health volunteers are flexible, spontaneous, 
and self-actualizing with the capacity for warmth, understanding, and openness to others. 
The researchers stated that this description resembles the description of altruists, and they 
suggested that the volunteer mental health counselor is "an altruistic individual whose 
desire to make a contribution to his world manifests] itself in his volunteerism" (p. 249). 
However, Hobfoll (1980) found that undergraduate volunteer mental health workers 
cannot be clearly distinguished from nonvolunteers in regard to personality 
characteristics usually associated with the "helping personality" (Carkhuff, 1969), such as 
empathy, self-acceptance, and tolerance. Volunteers were found to score higher with 
respect to social responsibility, which Hobfoll suggested may partially explain their 
motivation for volunteering. 

Amato (1985), in his study of planned helping behavior (as opposed to 
spontaneous helping behavior), found that people involved in formal, organizational 
helping scored higher on adherence to the norm of social responsibility and had an 
internal locus of control, compared to those involved in informal helping activities that 
involved friends and/or family members. He also suggested that involvement in formal, 



24 

planned helping behavior is high if people feel responsible for others' welfare, feel their 
helping behavior can have an impact, and hold positive, nonpunitive views towards 
others. Interestingly, these are traits similar to those suggested by Rushton (1980) as 
being characteristic of an "altruistic personality." In order to assess whether or not 
community health volunteers appear to possess characteristics associated with the 
altruistic personality, Allen and Rushton (1983) reviewed 19 studies assessing 
volunteers* personality characteristics. They found that community volunteers tend to be 
more empathic, have higher internal moral standards, possess more positive attitudes 
towards themselves, have greater feelings of self-efficacy and are more emotionally 
stable than nonvolunteers. These characteristics are also in accord with Rushton's 
conception of the altruistic personality. Clearly, the evidence suggests that some people 
are more likely to help than others, but are some people truly seeking to help others 
(altruistic motivation) or are they ultimately seeking self-benefit? Both Staub (1974) and 
Rushton ( 1980) suggested that altruism is not an alternative to egoism, but rather, it is a 
special form of egoism; the rewards for acting prosocially are internal or self- 
administered rather than external or socially administered. Their research, however, did 
not address the question of underlying motivation. 

Volunteer Motivations 

In order to address the question of underlying motivation, Daniel Batson and his 
colleagues used a research paradigm that would enable them to infer participants' 
ultimate goal when helping (Batson, Bolen, Cross, & Neuringer-Benefiel, 1986). First, 
they examined four personality variables identified as contributing to an altruistic 
personality: social responsibility, self-esteem, ascription of responsibility and 



25 

dispositional empathy. They then observed helping under specific systematically varied 
conditions, where escape from the negative consequences for self of not helping another 
(e.g., shame and guilt) was either easy or hard. Batson et al. found no evidence that any 
of the four "altruistic" personality variables was associated with altruistic motivation, 
although three of the variables (self-esteem, ascription of responsibility and empathic 
concern) were associated with prosocial motivation (i.e., helping others). From these 
results, should it be concluded that the "altruistic personality" is not really altruistic? 
Such a conclusion may be premature based on the fact that other personality variables 
that contribute to an altruistic personality (e.g., self-actualization, flexibility and 
tolerance) were not measured and that helping responses were examined in only one need 
situation. 

Traditionally, volunteer motivations were assumed to be altruistic. Perhaps our 
conception of volunteers falls into a special subgroup of those who provide prosocial 
behavior. Nonetheless, this view of volunteers influenced the way in which volunteer 
programs are designed, operated and studied. Clary and Snyder (1991) addressed the 
question of volunteer motivations in terms of a functional analysis. According to the 
researchers, a functional analysis is concerned with the needs, motives and 
social/psychological functions being served by volunteer activities. They asserted that 
volunteer activity based on altruistic concern for others in need and/or a desire to 
contribute to society serves a "value-expressive function." This function incorporates the 
idea that a person's values about others' well-being influences helping behavior. 

Additionally, researchers focused on other motivations that cause people to 
volunteer. In her study of 4-H volunteers, Henderson (1981) found that the primary 



26 

motivation for adult volunteers was affiliation, or the desire to interact with others. This 
reason for volunteering serves a "social-adjustment function" (Clary & Snyder, 1991), 
which reflects normative influences from one's social network. Fitch (1987), in his study 
of the motivations of college students volunteering for community service, found that 
motives are both egoistic and altruistic; Wiehe and Isenhour (1977), studying community 
agency volunteers, found similar results. Gidron (1978) asked volunteers in health and 
mental health institutions to report the extent to which they expected to receive extrinsic 
rewards (rewards controlled by the institution) and intrinsic rewards (rewards associated 
with the subjective meaning of the work for the volunteer). While two-thirds of the 
sample expected some extrinsic rewards, the vast majority expected primarily intrinsic 
rewards. Gidron 's findings did not explicitly address which rewards would be deemed 
altruistic or egoistic; thus, it is not clear how those two motivations impacted volunteers' 
reasons for volunteering. 

Henderson (1980) suggested that each volunteer has unique motivations and 
expectations of his or her experience. Ascertaining these motivations can contribute to 
providing volunteers with a satisfactory experience while simultaneously staffing 
community agencies. In addition, the possibility that volunteers in different 
organizations are very different types of people, and have unique motivations for 
volunteering, has implications for recruitment and retention of volunteers (Sergent & 
Sedlacek, 1990). However, the question remains as to whether crisis/suicide 
paraprofessionals have different levels of altruistic reasons for volunteering than those 
individuals engaging m other forms of volunteer work; or if crisis intervention volunteers 
are more altruistic than those who do not volunteer at all. Research suggests that those 



27 

involved in helping professions (and possibly in similar volunteer activities as well) do 
tend to have more of an altruistic personality than those in other arenas (Amato, 1985). 

Relationship Between Volunteer Motivations and Abilities 

Very few studies have examined the way in which people's motivations for 
volunteering have impacted their ability to display necessary skills in particular 
community agency settings, yet it is certainly plausible that a person's motivation for 
volunteering could directly impact their willingness to take risks, learn new skills and 
perhaps even adopt new ways of thinking or conceptualizing. Some researchers have 
argued that helping behavior involves more than just willingness to help; abilities are an 
important feature of effective helping. Clary and Orenstein (1991) studied the 
relationship between crisis counselors' motives for volunteering and abilities to provide 
therapeutic responses to their actual helping behavior. Black and DiNitto (1994) 
examined the motivations, among other variables, of volunteers who work with survivors 
of rape and battering. From these two studies, volunteers' motivations were found to 
impact a multitude of areas, including amount of help given to clients, length of volunteer 
service, and volunteer satisfaction. Research has also demonstrated links between 
altruistic motivation and situational empathic concern (Batson, 1987) as well as 
commitment to crisis-counseling volunteer work (Clary & Miller, 1986). In addition, 
Clary and Orenstein ( 1991 ) found a direct relationship between altruistic motives for 
volunteering and the length of time people spent as a volunteer. They predicted that 
early-terminating volunteers (i.e., volunteers who decide, of their own volition, to 
terminate their 9-month volunteer commitment early) would report lower levels of 
altruistic motivation for volunteering at the beginning of training than completed-service 



28 

volunteers (who served as volunteer counselors for 9 or more months). All the 
completed-service volunteers in Clary and Orenstenvs study had served more than 12 
months. Analyses supported their prediction and were statistically significant to the 
p < . 005 level. 

Summary 

Research, then, has demonstrated that a helper's characteristics and motives can 
affect helping behavior, particularly the amount of help (i.e., deciding whether to help 
and how much). Still to be answered are questions about the effectiveness of help (i.e., 
does the helper have the ability to help and is the help actually helpful). As pointed out 
by Neimeyer and Pfeiffer (1994) and others (e.g., Frankish, 1994; Clary & Orenstein, 
1991), this aspect of help has been relatively ignored, and when it has been examined, the 
focus has tended to remain on its impact on the amount of help. Thus, it is important to 
separate intentions to help from ability to help, since these two components are not 
synonymous. 

Current Study 
In response to the paucity of research evaluating the effectiveness of 
paraprofessionals in suicide prevention, and to address some of the issues and questions 
raised above, this study proposes to examine two major areas that are important in suicide 
and crisis intervention. The purpose of this study is to investigate what differences exist 
in general therapeutic empathy and motivations for engaging in helping behavior between 
suicide hotline volunteers and untrained individuals. The benefits that may develop from 



29 

this study include helping to predict an individual's likelihood of volunteering in a crisis 
intervention agency as well as his or her success as a crisis intervention volunteer. 

Hypotheses 

Paraprofessionals who volunteer at a suicide/crisis intervention agency will 
exhibit more empathy in the form of perspective-taking ability and empathic 
understanding than untrained individuals, but display less empathy as length of 
experience increases compared to less experienced volunteers, and express higher levels 
of altruistic motivation for volunteering than a nontrained control group. The specific 
hypotheses to be tested are: 

Hypothesis 1 : Individuals who are trained crisis/suicide intervention volunteers 
will exhibit greater empathy, in the form of perspective-taking ability and empathic 
understanding, than will volunteers who have not yet undergone training or 
undergraduate psychology students untrained in crisis intervention (including active 
listening skills). Hoi; There will be no difference in amount of empathic perspective- 
taking ability and empathic understanding between trained crisis center volunteers and 
untrained volunteers or psychology undergraduates. 

Hypothesis 2: As a crisis intervention volunteer's length of experience increases, 
the amount of empathy will decrease. Hq2: There will be no difference in the amount of 
empathic perspective-taking ability and empathic understanding between trained crisis 
center volunteers who have more experience and those who have less experience 
volunteering at the agency. 

Hypothesis 3: When subjects consider reasons why they would volunteer, 
suicide/crisis hotline volunteers will express higher levels of altruistic motivation than 



30 

nontrained psychology undergraduates. H 3: There will be no difference in amount of 
altruistic motivation as a reason for volunteering between crisis center volunteers and 
undergraduate psychology students. 

Key Definitions 

Altruism: helping behavior based on concern for the welfare of another rather 
than concern for the welfare of the self (i.e., egoism). 

Altruistic Motivation; the extent to which a person volunteers out of concern for 
others as opposed to concern for self. 

Empathic Understanding: "an active process of desiring to know the full, present 
and changing awareness of another person, of reaching out to receive his communication 
and meaning, and of translating his words and signs into experienced meaning that 
matches . . . aspects of his awareness that are most important to him. . . .It is an 
experiencing of the consciousness 'behind' another's outward communication, but with 
the continuous awareness that this consciousness is originating and proceeding in the 
other" (Barrett-Lennard, 1962, p. 3). It is not "essential for the person with whom one is 
empathizing to be literally present . . . [for it is] an inner experience" (Barrett-Lennard, 
1976, p. 175). 

Empathy: the ability to accurately perceive and understand the specific content of 
another person's thoughts and feelings and the ability to infer and communicate that 
person's emotional state(s). 

Paraprofessional: volunteers specifically trained in crisis intervention and suicide 
prevention (including training using active listening skills) in order to answer telephone 
calls from individuals in suicidal, personal, and/or emotional crisis. 



31 

Perspective-Taking: the tendency or ability of the respondent to spontaneously 
adopt the perspective of other people and see things from their point of view. 

Success as a Volunteer: completion of crisis intervention training and continuing 
to volunteer beyond the six-month time requirement. 

Volunteer: "someone who contributes services without financial gain to a 
functional subeommunity or eause" (Henderson, 1985, p.31). 



CHAPTER 3 
METHOD 



In this chapter, the methods used to test the research hypotheses will be discussed. 
It includes a discussion of the research design, along with its strengths and weaknesses; a 
description of the participants, including demographic information; and a presentation of 
the instruments used, as well as other instruments considered but found lacking for this 
study. In addition, the procedures followed in the study, as well as the specific analyses 
used, are discussed. 

Design 
The sample studied consisted of three groups: crisis center volunteers, crisis 
center applicants who were accepted for volunteer training, and undergraduate 
psychology students. Participants were not randomly assigned to conditions in that the 
applicants and volunteers were self-selected groups. Since participants in the control 
group did not choose to volunteer for the crisis center, some pre-existing differences in 
attitudes and motivations between the control group and the volunteer group may have 
existed. However, since most applicants and volunteers for this particular crisis center 
comprised upper-division undergraduates majoring in psychology, the control group was 
drawn from an upper-division psychology course required for psychology majors in order 
to be as similar as possible in composition to the research groups. The study measured 
the differences in empathy and in motivation for volunteering between trained 
paraprofessionals (with differing levels of experience), applicants accepted for training, 

32 



33 

and a control group similar in age, background and education. Data were gathered 
through the use of paper and pencil tests (see Instruments section), with an initial goal of 
having 30 people in each group. The actual number of participants in each group is 
discussed under Participants. The overall design was a nonequivalent control groups 
design. 

Participants 

The three participant groups were (a) paraprofessional volunteers with varying 
amounts of experience at the crisis agency, (b) individuals who had been accepted for 
volunteer training at the crisis agency (but had not yet completed training), and (c) 
undergraduate psychology students enrolled in Personality Theory at a large southeastern 
university. All paraprofessional volunteers were from a prominent southeastern crisis 
intervention agency. Any control group participants who had either previously 
participated in, or were currently enrolled in. the crisis center training program were not 
included as part of the control group in the analyses. 

An initial goal of 30 participants in each research group (volunteers and trainees) 
was approved by the dissertation committee, in actuality, there were 75 participants in 
the volunteer group, 27 in the training group and 46 in the control group. The training 
group was predicted to be the most difficult group from which to collect data due to the 
relatively small number of people who participate in training classes. However, it was 
determined, after seeking statistical consultation, that 27 participants in the training group 
was an adequate number of respondents for the analyses. 

Overall, 148 people participated in the study (26 men and 122 women); 1 15 of the 
participants were students and 33 were not; most of the participants were 



34 

single/unmarried (123); and racial composition of the participants was as follows: 1 16 
Caucasian, 12 Hispanic, 10 Asian/Pacific islander, 6 African American, and 4 Other. 
The age range of participants was 18-57, with an average age of 26.2 years (SD = 9.6). 

Instruments 

Empathy 

Scales used 

In order to assess participant's empathy, two instruments were used. The first 
instrument is a subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980), a 28-item 
instrument that measures four aspects of empathy. Carey, Fox, and Spraggins (1988) 
designed a study to verify the multidimensional nature and item composition of the 
Interpersonal Reactivity Index subscales through factor analysis. It is important to 
replicate the factor structure of the instrument with varying samples to demonstrate that 
the factors have a wider range of applicability as generalized constructs (to the extent that 
invariance is found across changes in either variables or individuals). The Interpersonal 
Reactivity Index subscales measure four discernibly different empathy dimensions and 
the constructs measured by the Interpersonal Reactivity index have generalizability 
outside the original samples used to develop the instrument (Carey et al., 1988). The 
subscale most relevant to the current study is the perspective-taking (PT) scale, which is 
related to the cognitive ability to judge other people accurately (Davis, 1983b). It 
involves the "tendency to spontaneously adopt the psychological view of others" (Davis, 
1983a, pp. 113-1 14), which is quite compatible with Rogerian empathic understanding. 
Carey et al. ( 1 988) suggest that the PT scale is a useful measure of empathic effectiveness 



35 

in counseling. In addition. Clary and Orenstein ( 1991 ) found that perspective-taking is 
involved in helping, but "is more relevant for effectiveness than for amount of help" (p. 
63). It seems that perspective-taking focuses on collecting information and improving 
understanding, clearly cognitive processes, rather than engaging in altruistic behavior, 
which may be more emotional (Davis, 1983b). The coefficient alpha of the PT scale is 
.78. Okun, Shepard, and Eisenberg (2000) used the PT scale to assess volunteers-in- 
training at the Humane Society and Parents Anonymous. The coefficient alpha for the 
scale in their study was .81 . 

The other three subscaies of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, which were not 
used in this study, are the fantasy scale (a tendency to become deeply involved in 
fictitious situations), the personal distress scale (a tendency to experience emotions 
related to discomfort and distress when faced with a needy other), and the empathic 
concern scale (a tendency to experience emotions of concern and sympathy when 
exposed to a person in distress). The fantasy and personal distress subscaies were not 
used in the current investigation since no studies have indicated their usefulness as 
measures for empathic effectiveness in counseling situations. The empathic concern 
subscale was not used since it has been shown to have no relationship to measures of 
interpersonal functioning (Davis, 1983a). In addition, people with higher scores on this 
subscale reported more unease and anxiety around others; that is, Davis found a generally 
positive relationship between scores on the empathic concern subscale and measures of 
shyness, social anxiety and audience anxiety as well as slight tendencies toward chronic 
fearfulness and vulnerability. Each of the four subscaies consists of seven items rated on 
a scale of (does not describe me well) to 4 (describes me very well). For each scale, 



36 

overall scores can range from to 28. with 28 indicating a high degree of that particular 
aspect of empathy. 

The other instrument used to measure participants 7 empathy was Barrett- 
Lennard's Relationship Inventory ( Barrett-Lennard, 1978). This instrument "is designed 
to measure four dimensions of interpersonal relationships adapted from Rogers' (1957, 
1959) conception of the necessary conditions for therapeutic... change" (Barrett-Lennard, 
1978, p. 1). It measures empathy, congruence, level of regard, and unconditionality. 
These four theoretically critical variables of therapist/counselor-to-client responses can 
be assessed from the perceptions of either the client or the therapist. For the purpose of 
this study, the variable of interest is empathy from crisis volunteer's (counselor's) 
perspective. Hundreds of studies have used various adaptations and research applications 
of the Relationship Inventory (Barrett-Lennard. 1986; Barrett-Lennard & Bergerson, 
1975). One useful application of the Relationship Inventory is that an ordinary person 
can respond to questions in reference to any significant relationship with another person, 
which is consistent with the usefulness of the instrument in a counseling or therapy 
research context. 

The Relationship Inventory is a 64-item questionnaire, in which a person judges 
statements with respect to how true or untrue they are about him/her. Gurman (1977), in 
his extensive review of the Relationship Inventory, reports mean split-half (internal) 
reliability and test-retest coefficients of .80 or above for each of the four Relationship 
Inventory subscales. Reliability, or consistency, is centrally concerned with whether an 
instrument yields the same result whenever it is applied to something that it is designed to 
measure which has remained constant from one occasion of measurement to another. 



37 

Barrett-Lcnnard (1986) states that official norms for the Relationship Inventory 
do not exist. Such norms would indicate that in a certain percent of cases, scores on a 
given subscale exceed or fall below a specified value. Fortunately, such norms are not 
essential for most research. The task of calculating norms for the Relationship Inventory, 
where there are at least 10 principal variants of the 64-item version of the instrument, and 
at least as many significant revisions and adaptations, seems particularly complex. 
Relationship Inventory data have been collected in various contexts (e.g., diverse therapy 
research studies, education-based studies, marital and family sphere studies, and 
communication studies), through different viewpoints, and in a wide array of 
relationships of varying duration and significance. These different variables suggest that 
accumulating and organizing data into meaningful normative form would be a formidable 
task. 

For the purpose of the current study, the hypotheses state that differences between 
groups will exist (e.g., volunteers will exhibit greater empathy than will trainees or 
controls); since the Relationship Inventory scores are measured as a dependent variable, 
norms or score cut-offs are not necessary to measure differences or compare groups. In 
addition, it should not be taken for granted that 'more [i.e., a higher score] means better 
on all Relationship Inventory scales, in all cases" (Barrett-Lennard, 1986, p.455). 

The Empathic Understanding subscale of the Relationship Inventory consists of 
16 statements designed to measure participants' empathy. The items in each subscale are 
rated on a 6-point scale (+3, +2, +1, -1, -2, -3), with +3 indicating yes. I strongly feel it is 
true about me and -3 indicating no, I strongly feel it is not true about me. Half of the 
items in each subscale are negatively worded and reverse-scored. Overall scaled scores 



38 

can range from -48 to 48. with a positive 48 indicating the highest degree of empathic 
understanding. Gurman ( 1977) reviewed a substantial range of contexts and 
investigations using the Relationship Inventory. He found a mean coefficient alpha of 
.84 for the empathy subscale. The positive results of a range of independent predictive 
studies concerned with the association between relationship conditions measured by the 
Relationship Inventory and outcome in therapy or helping situations form strong 
evidence of construct (predictive) validity. Gurman concludes that "there exists 
substantial, if not overwhelming evidence in support of the hypothesized relationship 
between . . . therapeutic conditions and outcome in individual therapy and counselling" 
(p. 523). 

In general, the issue of validity is rather complex in psychosocial measurement. It 
depends on the clarity of a concept and on the definition of what is intended to be 
measured, on the meaningfulness of viewing the construct as variably falling along a low 
to high continuum or sequence, and on the congruence between the conceptualized 
dimension and the actual variable being measured. Different types of validity, such as 
content, predictive, ■factorial." and construct, address some of the above issues. Both the 
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980) and the Relationship Inventory (Barrett- 
Lennard, 1978), understood and applied appropriately, can be treated as valid scales. 

Other scales considered 

Although not easily adaptable to the current study, Ickes and various colleagues 
developed the "unstructured dyadic interaction paradigm" to measure empathic accuracy 
used in a naturalistic setting (e.g., see Ickes, 1993; Ickes, Bissonnette, Garcia, & Stinson, 
1990; Ickes, Stinson, Bissonnette, & Garcia, 1990; Ickes & Tooke, 1988). Members of a 



39 

dyad are unobtrusively audio- and videotaped while interacting in a "waiting room." At 
the end of the observation period, participants are partially debriefed, then each member 
of the dyad is asked to separately review the videotape and assess the thoughts and 
feelings he or she had during the "waiting room" interaction. Participants are then 
directed to view the tape a second time and asked to infer the content of their partner's 
thoughts and feelings during the interaction. Finally, both participants are asked to 
complete a posttest questionnaire assessing their perceptions of themselves and their 
partner during the interaction. A global measure of empathic accuracy is then computed 
by trained, independent raters making similarity judgments. The resulting percentage 
measure of empathic accuracy (which controls for individual differences in total number 
of inferences made as well as reliability of similarity judgments) ranges from .00 (total 
inaccuracy) to 1.00 (perfect accuracy). The eclectic approach of this method is appealing 
in that it compensates for weaknesses found in using just one approach to assess 
empathy. However, this method would be extremely difficult to use as intended (in a 
naturalistic setting) with crisis hotline volunteers, whose interactions transpire over the 
telephone with callers who typically have complete anonymity and tend to be in 
relatively high levels of distress. 

In a review of research on the reliability of raters for scales based on the Carkhuff 
and Truax facilitative dimensions (e.g., empathy), Wolber and McGovern ( 1 977) found 
that higher interrater reliabilities are more likely when raters are extensively trained in 
communication skills. In addition, Kurtz and Grummon ( 1972) found that correlations 
between observer ratings of empathy with client perceptions have generally been low. 
This does leave the construct validity of ratings open to question (Bohart & Greenberg, 






40 

1997). Marangoni. Garcia, Ickes, and Teng (1995) suggest that paper and pencil 
measures of empathic ability are a viable alternative to the time-intensive performance 
measure that Ickes and his colleagues developed. 

Other tests considered for measuring empathy, but found to be lacking for the 
current study, mcluded the Human Empathic Listening Test (HELT; Coonfield, Nida, & 
Gray, 1976), the Crisis Center Discrimination Index (CCDI; Delworth, Rudow, & Taub, 
1972), and the Helpful Responses Questionnaire (HRQ; Miller, Hedrick, & Orlofsky, 
1 991 ). The HELT consists of 1 2 tape-recorded crisis vignettes and 60 questions 
regarding the vignettes. It is designed to measure three aspects of empathic listening: 
Understanding, Interest, and Response- Ability. Gray, Nida, and Coonfield ( 1976) found 
mixed results regarding the HELTs reliability and validity: the instrument was valid 
(discriminant validity), however the Understanding subscale had an internal consistency 
of only .29, the Response- Ability scale, .40, and the Interest subscale was .88. The 
reliability estimates of the first two subscales are quite low, suggesting that the HELT 
may not be a reliable measure of empathic listening ability. 

The CCDI is another measure developed for the selection and evaluation of 
paraprofessionals. It is based on Carkhuff s (1969) research with the facilitative and 
action-oriented dimensions relevant in the helping process, which include empathy, 
respect, and confrontation. The CCDI consists of 1 6 audiotaped excerpts of crisis center 
calls, with topics such as suicidal ideation, pregnancy, school difficulties, and 
relationship problems. Although scoring criteria are included with the instrument, no 
reliability or validity data are given. 



41 

Finally, the HRQ is a brief free-response questionnaire that measures participants' 
ability to generate empathic responses. The instrument requires that each response be 
rated on a "5-point ordinal scale of depth of reflection" (Miller, Hedrick, & Orlofsky, 
1991, p. 445), with a score of 1 indicating no reflection and an interruption in the flow of 
communication; and a score of 5 indicating that the reflection includes inferred meaning 
and a reflection of feeling. The interrater reliability in the Miller et al. ( 1 99 1 ) study is 
high (.93), but test-retest reliability was only .45. The authors acknowledge that other 
variables probably account for variance in empathic skills and suggest further study. No 
validity data for the study is given nor are cutoff scores suggested for adequate or good 
scores. 

Motivation 

In order to measure participants' altruistic motivation^ an adaptation of Clary and 
Orenstein's ( 199 1 ) Measure of Altruistic Motivation was used. Altruistic motivation, as 
opposed to egoistic motivation, is operationally defined as the extent to which a person 
volunteers out of concern for others versus concern for self. The measure consists of 25 
possible reasons for performing crisis counseling, of which five are identified as 
representing altruistic reasons (75% agreement in a sample evaluating the reasons by 
raters knowledgeable about motivational issues) and 20 as egoistic reasons. To assess 
altruistic motivation, participants are asked to indicate their top five reasons for 
volunteering. Ranks are then reverse-scored (i.e., the most important reason receives a 
score of 5, the next most important reason receives a score of 4, and so on) and 
participants' overall altruistic motivation score is computed from the reverse ranks of any 



42 

altruistic reasons included in their top five choices. Scores on the measure range from 
(only egoistic reasons chosen) to 15 (only altruistic reasons chosen). 

This measure is derived from ratings by an independent group of raters 
knowledgeable about motivational issues and appears to be a reasonable instrument. In 
addition, this scale can be presumed and treated as valid based on the conclusions of the 
independent raters. Lastly, Clary and Orenstein's (1991) measure is one of the only 
published instruments that assess motivations for performing crisis hotline volunteer 
work. However, it should be noted that internal consistency would not be expected from 
this scale due to the nature of the measure. It would be expected that participants' 
reasons for volunteering would not necessarily be related to each other, and choosing one 
altruistic reason for volunteering does not mean that other altruistic reasons are more 
likely to be chosen. For example, one reason an individual might volunteer is because it 
is a "chance to help others" (an altruistic reason) but this does not suggest that the person 
is only volunteering for altruistic reasons. This same person may also choose additional 
reasons to volunteer, such as "to gain skills which will be applicable to other situations" 
and "for personal growth" (both egoistic reasons). Walsh and Betz (1990) state that 
internal consistency often refers to homogeneity of items. Since the Measure of 
Altruistic Motivation scale contains both altruistic and egoistic reasons for volunteering, 
homogeneity of items would not be expected. Thus, estimates of internal consistency 
would likely reflect that items are heterogeneous. 



43 

Procedure 
Control Group 

For the control group, a brief verbal explanation of the study was given and 
questionnaire packets were handed out to students in a Personality Theory class during 
the Fall 2000 semester. The Informed Consent form and a brief instruction sheet were 
attached to the front of the questionnaire packet, which included a personal information 
(demographic) sheet, and the three instruments (the Relationship Inventory, Interpersonal 
Reactivity Index and Measure of Altruistic Motivation) in one of six assigned orders (to 
ascertain for order effects). An opportunity to be debriefed after the study was offered to 
any interested participants. All students in attendance completed a questionnaire packet 
and answered every question. Of the 47 packets returned, one was not used as part of the 
control group data in the study since the participant had already filled out a questionnaire 
packet in Crisis Center training. All participants (i.e., all groups in the research study) 
were given questionnaire packets that contained a consent form, an instruction page, and 
the three instruments in one of six assigned orders. 

Training Group 

For the training group, the Crisis Center Training Director agreed to give 
questionnaires to potential volunteers undergoing training during the Fall 2000 training 
class; forty potential volunteers attended the initial Saturday training. The Training 
Director gave questionnaire packets to one trainer for each group after the all-day 
Saturday training. Volunteers-in-training are divided into several groups, each run by 
two trainers, one of whom directs the training for a particular evening. The trainer 
handed out questionnaires to the volunteers-in-training during their first Tuesday evening 



44 



session and asked them to return the questionnaires by the following training class (the 
next Thursday). Since two potential volunteers "dropped out" of training after the initial 
Saturday training, a total of 38 trainees received questionnaire packets. The 
questionnaire packets were the same as the packets handed out to the control group, 
except that a letter written by the dissertation study researcher was attached to the front of 
the packet. The letter briefly described the study, gave some background on the 
researcher's volunteer experiences with the Crisis Center, and asked trainees to 
participate. Twenty-three questionnaire packets were collected by trainers at the 
beginning of the next training class; trainers told the volunteers-in-training who had not 
returned a packet that they could return their packet at the next training class (the next 
week) and four more questionnaire packets were collected at that training class. Thus, 
the return rate (27 out of 38) was 71.1%. All questionnaire packets returned by potential 
volunteers were complete and used in the training group data set. Trainers gave all 
questionnaire packets to the Training Director, who sent them directly to the researcher. 

Volunteer Group 

The volunteer group was divided into two groups for the purpose of disseminating 
the questionnaire packets: active and inactive volunteers. It was decided, in consultation 
with the Crisis Center Director, that active volunteers would receive questionnaire 
packets in their mailboxes at the Crisis Center, whereas inactive volunteers (i.e., 
volunteers not actively or currently volunteering at the Crisis Center) would receive 
questionnaires in the mail. All volunteer data was collected during Fall 2000 semester. 
Questionnaire packets were sent to the Crisis Center Director for dissemination into 
active volunteers' mailboxes. A letter similar to the one attached to the trainees' packets 



45 

was attached to the front of each questionnaire packet. In addition, the Crisis Center 
Director included a cover letter with each of the active volunteers' packets encouraging 
their participation in the study. Questionnaires were placed in the 102 active volunteers' 
mailboxes. Of the 102 active volunteers, 90 checked their mailboxes during the research 
period. Completed questionnaires were returned to a Staff mailbox. 

This researcher sent 102 questionnaire packets to inactive volunteers (along with 
an introduction letter similar to the one for active volunteers) via the U.S. Postal Service. 
Stamped return envelopes, marked "surveys" were included in the mailed packets. After 
consultation with the Director of the Crisis Center, it was decided that the return 
envelopes would be addressed to the Director, rather than the researcher, with an 
expectation that doing so would increase the return rate. However, no additional cover 
letter from the Director was included with the mailed questionnaire packets. Of the 
initial 102 questionnaire packets mailed, eight were returned by the Postal Service as 
undeliverable or unable to forward due to non-current addresses. In addition, three 
packets were not delivered to student participants (who were inactive volunteers) because 
their campus addresses were not current. Therefore, 9 1 questionnaire packets went out to 
participants. 

The return rate goal was, as stated earlier, 30 completed questionnaire packets 
from the entire volunteer group. The goal was exceeded: 40 packets were returned from 
the inactive volunteers (a 44% return rate) and 35 from the active volunteers (a 39% 
return rate) for a total of 75 packets. The overall return rate for the volunteer group was 
41 .4% (75 returns out of 1 81 questionnaires disseminated). The Director mailed all 
returned packets to the researcher. Only the volunteer group had protocols with answers 



46 

omitted on the empathy and motivation instruments. Protocols with omitted answers 
were included only in analyses that did not pertain to the omissions. In other words, if a 
participant did not list country of origin, but all the instruments were completed, then the 
participant's data regarding the instruments were used in the analyses; however, if a 
participant did hot answer questions on the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, for example, 
then the data were not used. 

Statistical Analyses 

With respect to the three hypotheses, the following statistical analyses were used: 

Hypothesis 1: One-way, between participants MANOVA for unequal ns, with 
group (either trained, untrained, or college students) serving as the independent variable 
and with perspective-taking ability and empathic understanding serving as the dependent 
variables. 

Hypothesis 2: Simultaneous multiple regression with the variables in the analysis 
being number of months of post-training experience, perspective-taking and empathic 
understanding. 

Hypothesis 3: Independent /-tests, with group (volunteers vs. untrained college 
students) serving as the independent variable and altruistic motivation serving as the 
dependent variable. 



CHAPTER 4 
RESULTS 



This chapter begins with a summary of the results supplied through descriptive 
statistics and includes four tables. The chapter then expounds on the specific results for 
the three hypotheses and explains the analyses used. It concludes with some post-hoc 
analyses. 

Descriptive Statistics 
With respect to the perspective-taking subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity 
Index, which measures empathy through the tendency of a person to spontaneously adopt 
the psychological view of others (answers range from = does not describe me well to 4 
= describes me very well, with an overall score range from to 28 on the seven 
questions), respondents scored a mean of 20.3 (SD = 1.06). On the Relationship 
Inventory empathic understanding subscale (where answers couid be -3, -2, -1 , +1 , +2, 
+3, with -3 = no. J strongly feel it is not true about me and +3 =yes, J strongly feel it is 
true about me, and the overall score range for the 1 6 questions is -48 to +48), the mean 
score was 17.1 (SD = 10.3). On the Measure of Altruistic Motivation, only the five 
altruistic reasons are scored by reverse-scoring the rankings and then adding the scores 
together, with overall scores ranging from to 15; the mean of the Measure of Altruistic 
Motivation was 5.3 (SD = 3.5). The average age of participants was 26.2 (SD = 9.6) and 
the average amount of time (in months) that volunteers worked at the Crisis Center was 
1 1.3 (SD = 15.6). Means, standard deviations, ranges, and measures of internal 

' 47 



48 

consistency arc listed in Table 4- 1 . Seven respondents did not answer one or more items 
on the Relationship Inventory measure: consequently, the number of respondents on that 
scale is 141. 



Table 4-1 . Means and Standard Deviations of Variables Measured 



Variable 


N 


Mean 


SD 


Range 


a coefficient 


IRI a 


148 


20.3 


3.6 


8,27 


0.64 b 


RI 


141 


17.1 


10.3 


-12,46 


0.78 


AM 


148 


5.3 


3.5 


0, 14 


-- 


Age c 


148 


26.2 


9.6 


18,57 




Time 


74 


11.3 


15.6 


2,42 





Note. Dashes indicate that internal reliability was not calculated for this measure since 
the nature of the measure suggests that it would not make sense to test for internal 
consistency. If a respondent chooses one altruistic reason, s/he would not be expected to 
necessarily choose other altruistic reasons. In addition, although the range of scores was 
to 14, only one participant scored a 14. Five respondents scored a 10 and three 
respondents scored a 12; no one scored an 11 or a 13, and all other respondents' scores 
fell below 10. 

IRI is the Interpersonal Reactivity Index; RI is the Relationship Inventory; and AM is 
the Measure of Altruistic Motivation. 

Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.64 is considered borderline for internal consistency, 
however previous research indicates that the Interpersonal Reactivity Index has a 
coefficient alpha of 0.78. 
c Age of participants is in years. 

Time volunteering is in months. This statistic only applies to active and inactive 
volunteers. The mean, standard deviation and range reported were Windsorized (see 
Hypothesis 2 section for a complete explanation). Before Windsorizing, the mean for 
length of experience was 17.5 (SD = 36.7) and the range was 2, 242. One participant in 
the volunteer group did not indicate the number of months volunteering, thus n = 74. 



Frequencies for demographic information, major, enrollment in the Crisis Center 
volunteer training, and additional/other training in counseling or crisis intervention are 



49 

presented in Table 4-2. A nonequivalent control groups design suggests that statistically 
significant differences between the groups may exist. If analyses yield results indicating 
that significant differences do exist, then an analysis of covariance would potentially 
need to be performed in order to control for the initial differences. 

Overall, 26 males and 122 females participated in the study. In the control group, 
there were 12 maies and 34 females. In the training group, there were four maies and 23 
females. In the volunteer group, there were 10 males and 65 females. Since there was a 
greater number of women participating in the study, a chi square statistic was performed 
in order to determine if there was a significant gender difference between the three 
groups. There was no significant difference in the proportion of males to females in any 
of the three groups {-/ (2) = 3.4, p = 0. 19). In addition, no significant differences in 

racial composition existed between the groups (x (2) = 12.3, p = Q. 14). Although 

significant differences were found in marital status between the groups (% (2) = 29.4, 

p < .01), t-tests revealed that marital status did not significantly affect empathy or 
motivation. 

The two most frequent participant responses for major were psychology (4 1 2%) 
and not currently a student (22.3%). Counselor Education and Sociology were the next 
most frequent responses, with 4.7% and 4. 1% respectively. Eighty of the participants 
responded that they had been enrolled in the Crisis Center training program, and 60 
responded that they had not. All of the 75 participants in the volunteer group marked 
"yes" to being enrolled in the training program, and five participants in the training group 
marked ''yes." It appears that the majority (n ■ 22) of the participants in the training 
program marked "no." since they were currently undergoing training when they 



50 

responded. The five participants in the training group who marked "yes"' may have been 
enrolled in (but not completed) a previous training class, or they may have interpreted the 



Table 4-2. Frequencies of the Measured Variables 



Variable 



n 



Percent 



Gender 



Males 
Females 



26 

122 



17.6% 
82.4% 



Marital Status 

Single (never married) 117 

Married 24 

Divorced 6 

Remained 1 



79.1% 

16.2% 

4.1% 

0.7% 



Race 



Caucasian 1 16 

Hispanic 12 

Asian/Pacific Islander 10 

African American 6 

Other 4 



78.4% 
8.1% 
6.7% 
4.1% 
2.7% 






Major 



Not a student 33 

Psychology 6 1 

Counselor Education 7 

Sociology 6 

Mental Health Counseling 5 

Counseling Psychology 4 

Rehab Services 4 

Clinical Psychology 3 

Criminology 3 

History 2 

Zoology 2 

Communication Sciences 2 



22.3% 
41.2% 
4.7% 
4.1% 
3.4% 
2.7% 
2.7% 
2.0% 
2.0% 
1.4% 
1.4% 
1.4% 



Have you ever been enrolled in the volunteer training program at the ACCC? 
Yes 80 

No 68 



54.1% 
45.9% 



Have you had additional or other training in counseling or crisis intervention? 
Yes 45 30.4% 
No 103 69.6% 

Majors listed with a frequency of 1 (0.7%) were English, Pre-med., Entomology, Linguistics, 
Telecom News, Public Relations, Political Science, Business, Finance, Nutrition, Religion, Rehab 
Counseling, Graduate Sociology, Divinity/Theology, Law School and Social Work. 



51 

question as including the training they were currently undergoing. Clearly, none of the 
control group participants had been enrolled in the training. In response to the question 
about additional training in counseling or crisis intervention, 45 participants marked 
"yes" and 103 marked "no." 

Since there were pre-existing differences in mean age for the three groups (see 
Table 4-3), a univariate F-test was computed for the differences between group means. 
The test revealed that the age differences were statistically significant, F (05, 2, 145) = 
14.7, p < .001. In addition, the mean age difference between each group was statistically 
significant (see Table 4-4). 



Table 4-3. Mean Ages in the Three Study Groups 



Group 



Mean Age (years) 



SD 



Control Group 46 

Training Group 27 

Volunteer Group 75 



20.8 
25.6 
29.7 



3.9 
10.2 
10.3 



Table 4-4. Group Differences in Mean Age 



Test 



Mean Difference 



Confidence Interval 



p value 



Control vs. Training 
Control vs. Volunteer 
Training vs. Volunteer 



-4.79 
-8.93 
-4.14 



-9.0, -0.6 
-12.2, -5.7 
-8.05, -0.23 



.026* 
.000* 
.038* 



Note. * = Difference is significant 



Hypothesis 1 
The first hypothesis of the study was that trained volunteers would exhibit greater 
empathy, in the form of perspective-taking ability and empathic understanding, than 
would trainees who have been accepted for volunteer training (but have not completed 



52 

training) or upper-level psychology undergraduates with no training in crisis intervention. 
Since more than one dependent variable was employed (i.e., both the Interpersonal 
Reactivity Index and the Relationship Inventory were used as empathic measures), a one- 
way, between participants multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for unequal n's 
was initially proposed as the statistical analysis to be performed. However, once it was 
determined that statistically significant mean age differences existed between the three 
groups (see Tables 4-3 and 4-4), which essentially means that a portion of the total 
variability among the dependent variables' scores was explained by the relationship 
between age and empathy, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was 
performed in order to extract the explained variability. This statistical adjustment of a 
concomitant variable (age, in this case) allowed comparison between the groups that 
could not be equated through the use of random assignment of participants. This 
statistical technique also reduces error variance, thereby gaining statistical power. 

With MANCOVA controlling for the age differences, an omnibus F-test revealed 
that age had no effect, Pillai's Trace F ( 05, 2, 136) = 0.7, p > 0.4. For each scale, again, 
no age differences were found: for the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, F (05, 1, 137) = 
0.7, p> 0.4 and for the Relationship Inventory, F(o5, 1,137)= 1.3, p> 0.2. However, 
as hypothesized, statistically significant differences (again using an omnibus F-statistic) 
in amount of empathy were found between the groups when controlling for age, Pillai's 
Trace F (05, 4, 274) = 5.8, p < .00 1 . For the Interpersonal Reactivity Index scale, F (.05, 
2, 137)= 8.2, p<. 001; for the Relationship Inventory,/ 7 (05, 2, 137)= 10.1,/?< .001. 

Since no age effect was found, the MANOVA results are reported for both scales; 
Table 4-5 contains the group means for each scale. On both the Interpersonal Reactivity 



53 

Index and the Relationship Inventory, the volunteer group mean was significantly 
different from the control group mean and the training group mean (see Table 4-6), but 
on the Relationship Inventory, the difference between volunteers and trainees was 
marginal. 



Table 4-5. Group Means on the Empathy Measures 



Scale and Group 



Mean 



SD 



F 



Interpersonal Reactivity Index 



Control 


18.8 


4.1 


Training 


19.8 


3.6 


Volunteer 


21.5 


3.1 


Relationship Inventory 






Control 


12.5 


9.0 


Training 


16.3 


9.8 


Volunteer 


20.5 


10.1 






F (.05, 2, 13*) 



8.2" 



9.7" 



: /><.001 



Table 4-6. Group Differences in Empathy 



Scale and Test 


Mean Difference 


Confidence Interval 


p value 


Interpersonal Reactivity Index 








Control vs. Training 


-3.9 


-8.5, 0.8 


.10 


"Control vs. Volunteer* 


-8.1 


-1 1.7, -4.4 


.000 


Training vs. Volunteer 


-4.2 


-8.5, 0.2 


.058 


Relationship Inventory 








Control vs. Training 


-1.0 


-2.7, 0.7 


.25 


Control vs. Volunteer* 


-2.5 


-4.0,-1.3 


.000 


Training vs. Volunteer* 


-1.7 


-3.2, -0.01 


.038 



Note. = predicted differences between these groups 
* ■ difference is significant 
Difference is marginally significant 



54 

Hypothesis 2 
The hypothesized inverse relationship between a crisis volunteer's length of experience 
and amount of empathy was not obtained. Volunteers' length of experience was 
measured by number of months working as a volunteer at the Crisis Center and amount 
of empathy was measured using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index and the Relationship 
Inventory. In order to correct for extreme values (outliers) in a data set, statistical 
methods can be employed to transform the entire data set or to substitute extreme values 
with less extreme values. One of these methods is called windsorized statistics. In order 
to help eliminate the influence of outlying data points in length of experience that might 
skew the results, the variable was windsorized. Windsorizing is a process whereby 
extreme data points (or outliers) are set to the highest value (data point) within the cluster 
of data points; that is, extreme values in the data set are replaced by the value of a cut-off 
criterion (Barnett & Lewis, 1978). Windsorizing comprises a compromise between 
eliminating the strong influence of extreme values on the mean while still using all of the 
information in the data set. A boxplot was used to determine the outliers in the data set 
(see Agresti & Finlay, 1 997). Boxplots are essentially charts that summarize the 
distribution of a variable by displaying the median, quartiles and outliers. With respect to 
the results of the boxplot. there were 19 cases that were determined to be outliers. The 
outliers were (in months of experience): 242, 204, 1 80, 144, 1 32, 96, 72, 60 (n = 4), 55, 
54, 52, 50, 48 (n = 3), and 47. The next highest value (or case) that was not an outlier 
was 42 (months of experience), which became the cut-off criterion. Therefore, when the 
19 outliers for the length of experience variable were windsorized, they were all set to 42. 
Before windsorizing, the mean length of volunteers' experience was 17.5 months 
(SD = 36.7). Results of correlations using the non- windsorized length of experience data 



55 

set were not statistically significant. This makes sense in light of the large standard 
deviation. After windsorizing, the mean was 1 1.3 (SD = 15.6). Standard deviation was 
more than halved, the mean dropped by 6.2 months of experience, and the correlational 
results were significant Correlations between the windsorized length of experience 
variable and the. two empathy measures are presented in Table 4-7. Age was also 
included in the correlational analyses since it was a possible confounding variable. 



Table 4-7. Correlations Among Experience, Age and Empathy 





Length of 


Interpersonal 


Relationship 


Age 




Experience 


Reactivity Index 


Inventory 




Length of 










Experience 


1.0 








Interpersonal 










Reactivity Index 


0.20* 


1.0 






Relationship 










Inventory 


0.27** 


0.52** 


1.0 




Age 


0.61** 


0.07 


0.06 


1.0 



* — 



p<.05. •*»/>< .01. 

Both the Interpersonal Reactivity Index and the Relationship Inventory were 
significantly positively associated with length of experience, but they were also 
significantly associated with each other. Therefore, a multiple regression was performed, 
entering the Interpersonal Reactivity Index and Relationship Inventory simultaneously. 
The two empathy measures accounted for 7% of the variability in length of experience 
{R ■ 0.28, adj. fir = 0.07), and at least one of the scales was associated with length of 

experience, F (2, 137) = 5.98,/? < .01. When each scale was tested individually, 
controlling for the other scale, the following results were found: for the Interpersonal 
Reactivity Index scale, f= !.!,/> = .273 and for the Relationship Inventory scale, / = 2.25, 



56 

p = .026. Therefore, controlling for the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, the Relationship 
Inventory significantly accounts for the variance in length of experience. However, 
controlling for the Relationship Inventory, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index does not 
account for the variance in length of experience. 

Since age was also significantly positively associated with experience, another 
simultaneous multiple regression was performed (with the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, 
Relationship Inventory and age as the predictor variables in order to control for shared 
predictive variance). The three variables accounted for 4 1 % of the variance in length of 
experience (R = 0.653, adj. R 2 = 0.41), and at least one of the variables was associated 
with length of experience, F (3, 1 36) = 33.76, p < .00 1 . Controlling for age and the 
Interpersonal Reactivity Index, the Relationship Inventory once again accounted for the 
variance in length of experience, t = 2.7, p = .008. In addition, age significantly predicted 
length of experience, controlling for the two empathy measures, t m 9.l,p m 000. It is 
not a surprise that the older a person is, the more experience that person typically has as a 
crisis volunteer. 

Hypothesis 3 
The third hypothesis, that crisis volunteers would exhibit higher levels of altruistic 
motivation than upper-level psychology undergraduates (with no crisis training) was not 
supported. An independent Mest was performed, with group (volunteers vs. controls) 
serving as the independent variable and the Measure of Altruistic Motivation serving as 
the dependent variable. A one-way ANOVA was conducted (using the entire sample's 
standard deviation) and revealed no differences in altruistic motivation across the three 
groups, F (.05, 2, 145) = 0.756, p > 0.4. The mean scores on the Measure of Altruistic 






57 

Motivation for each of the three groups were: control group mean = 5.8 (SD = 4.0), 
training group mean = 5. 1 (SD = 3.3), and volunteer group mean = 5.0, (SD = 3.2). As 
stated earlier, the difference between volunteers and controls on the Measure of Altruistic 
Motivation measure was not statistically significant. Consistent with the above findings, 
a specific comparison between the mean for the control group and the mean for the 
volunteer group revealed that the members of these two groups did not report different 
levels of altruistic motivation (mean difference = 0.78), CI = -0.5, 2.1,/? = .24. The 
frequencies for respondents' choices of the five altruistic reasons were: "a chance to help 
others." 1 08; "to express concern to people in need," 38; "to provide a good experience 
for people in need," 28; "to help those less fortunate than I," 20; and "a chance to give of 
myself without expecting some sort of 'pay-off," 1 9. The top egoistic reasons chosen 
were: "personal growth," 80; "to acquire new skills, experience," 80; "to gain skills 
which will be applicable to other situations," 54; "to develop better human relation 
skills," 49; "to help build my resume," 38; "to increase my self-understanding," 33; 
"academic internship/experiential learning," 30; "to become more sensitive to others," 
25; and "to use the special talents that I have," 24. Interestingly, the most frequently 
chosen reason (which would have been among respondent's top five rankings of reasons 
to volunteer) was an altruistic reason: "a chance to help others." 

Additional Analyses 
As previously stated in the section on descriptive statistics, no gender differences 
existed across the three research groups. Since there is, however, a body of literature that 
discusses gender differences in empathy and in altruism (e.g., Eisenberg and her 
colleagues, 1983, 1989; Feshbach, 1982; Graham & Ickes, 1997; Hoffman, 1977; Lennon 



58 

& Eisenberg, 1987; Manstead, 1992; Snodgrass, 1992), a comparison of gender 
differences was performed on all three measures. An analysis of these differences was 
not indicated by the primary hypotheses, but since it was readily available, a post-hoc 
analysis was conducted as a potentially rich source of descriptive research for future 
studies. A significant difference was found between males and females on both the 
Relationship Inventory and Measure of Altruistic Motivation scales (see Table 4-8). 



Table 4-8. Gender Differences on Measures of Empathy and Motivation 



p value 



Gender Relationship 

Inventory 



Interpersonal Measure of Altruistic 
Reactivity Index Motivation 



Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n 



Males 13.3 11.4 25 19.3 3.7 26 3.6 3.1 26 

Females 17.9 9.9 116 20.5 3.6 122 5.6 3.5 122 

r-statistic -2.1 -1.6 -2.7 

.04* .07 .008* 



Note. * = difference is significant 



CHAPTER 5 
DISCUSSION 



This chapter includes a discussion of the findings for each hypothesis, as well as 
the additional findings regarding gender differences. Future research suggestions are also 
included, as are limitations of this study. A summary of findings concludes the chapter. 

The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not trained crisis center 
volunteers would exhibit greater empathy and altruistic motivation than untrained 
individuals. In addition, the correlation between crisis center experience and empathy 
was also investigated. The literature on the empathic skills of professionals versus 
paraprofessionals suggests that lay volunteers are an important and even necessary 
component of crisis intervention and suicide prevention agencies. Some studies (e.g., 
Knickerbocker & McGee, 1973; McGee & Jennings, 1973) found that paraprofessionals 
are fully capable of becoming genuinely engaged with clients in crisis, and may even 
display higher levels of empathy, warmth and genuineness towards these same clients 
than professionals. The literature generally suggests that training and experience are both 
important components of volunteers" abilities to successfully connect empathically with 
clients in crisis (e.g., France, 1975; Hart & King, 1979; Kalafat, Boroto, & France, 1979; 
Knickerbocker & McGee, 1973; Miller, Hedrick. & Orlofsky, 1991; Neimeyer & 
Pfeiffer; 1994; O'Donnell & George, i977; Truax & Lister, 1971). 



59 



60 

Hypothesis 1 

The results support the assertion in the first hypothesis that trained volunteers 
would exhibit greater empathy than pre-volunteers or nonvolunteers who have not 
undergone training. The results suggest a pattern that is consistent with the assumption 
that crisis intervention training can significantly impact levels of empathy, with trained 
individuals having the most empathy; however, a causal relationship cannot be drawn 
from the current study. The results indicate that trained crisis volunteers are able to 
effectively engage with clients in crisis, and suggest that the training and experience they 
have undergone may increase their empathic skills. This conclusion lends support for the 
use of trained volunteers in crisis intervention agencies. Such a finding seems positive 
for those concerned with, or involved in, crisis intervention, since funding, community 
support, and other factors affecting a service agency might at least partially rely on the 
ability of the agency to demonstrate effectiveness. 

The fact that volunteers currently just beginning training were significantly 
different from trained volunteers on the Relationship Inventory and marginally 
significantly different on the Interpersonal Reactivity Index suggests that training does 
have an impact on empathy, although pre-existing group differences could also account 
for differences in empathic ability. However, the fact that there was no significant 
difference found between volunteers-in-training and a similar control group suggests that 
people who volunteer for a crisis intervention agency are not measurably different in 
terms of their ability to empathize than those who do not volunteer (i.e., trainees are not a 
self-selected group based on their empathic abilities). In addition, out of the original 38 
people who began the Fall training, only 23 people completed the training and graduated 



61 

to volunteer status; this indicates that not everyone who is interested in becoming a 
volunteer is able or willing to complete the training. 

It should be noted that the range of participants' scores on the Relationship 
Inventory (refer to Table 4-1 ) included some negative scores (recall that the overall score 
range for the Empathic Understanding subscale is -48 to +48). Barrett-Lennard (1986) 
points out that while it is true that the majority of scale scores generated from individual 
respondents are usually positive, a (sometimes generous) sprinkling of negative scores 
within a sample is not unusual, even in client - therapist relationships. Barrett-Lennard 
states that "there is no absolute meaning to the zero point - in the middle of the 
theoretical range - and significance has not been attributed a priori to any scoring values" 
(p. 454). A negative score would most likely imply that a respondent answered "no" to 
positive items and or answered ''yes" to negative items, which suggests, with respect to 
the current study, that the respondent's general relationships (e.g., interpersonal 
relationships that exist outside of the volunteer counseling situation) may be lacking in 
empathic understanding. 

With the standard scoring method, a scale score of 40 (or higher) would require a 
mean response of at least 2.5 (i.e., perhaps by selecting an equal number of +3's and +2's 
on positively- worded items and -3's and -2's on negatively- worded items). Barrett- 
Lennard ( 1 986) suggests that this score would seem about as high as could plausibly be 
expected in terms of honest and discriminating perception. He states that "in practice, 
scores above 40 occur but are infrequent" (p. 456). A score of 32 represents an average 
item score of 2 (after converting answers on negative items); it implies "clear affirmation 
that the referent person was experienced as very substantially empathic" (p.456, italics in 



62 

original). Similarly, a scale score of 24 (at the boundary of the third and fourth quartiles 
of the theoretical range) suggests that this level of empathy would tend to be adequate in 
helping relationships, whereas a score of 16 would be expected to represent a less than 
adequate level of therapeutic empathy. 

Recall the empathic understanding mean scores for each of the research groups 
(from Table 4-5): volunteers = 20.5 (SD = 10. 1), trainees = 16.3 (SD = 9.8), and controls 
= 12.5 (SD = 9.0). Based on the above assumptions, none of the study groups was 
substantially empathic. Volunteers scored at an adequate level of empathic 
understanding, whereas trainees' and controls' empathic levels were less than adequate. 

Hypothesis 2 
The direct relationship between a crisis volunteer's length of experience and 
amount of empathy found in the study did not support the second hypothesis, which 
projected that an inverse relationship would exist. Previous findings in the iiterature on 
how experience affects empathy are mixed. On the one hand, France (1974), Hart and 
King (1979), Neimeyer and Pfeiffer ( 1994), O'Donnell and George (1977), and Polenz 
and Verdi (1977) all found that paraprofessionals can provide better facilitative 
conditions with experience and training. As reported earlier, results regarding the first 
hypothesis show a pattern consistent with the assertion that training enhances crisis 
intervention effectiveness, though a causal relationship cannot be drawn from the current 
research. On the other hand, Carkhuff, Kratochvil, and Friel (1968) and Elkins and 
Cohen ( 1982) found that counseling skills did not improve with experience; while 
counselors' ability to discriminate facilitative conditions improved with experience, their 
actual ability to offer these conditions declined. 



63 

With respect to the results regarding the second hypothesis, one cannot 
completely surmise how well volunteers are actually able to offer empathy to clients, 
since observational studies were not conducted in this research. However, based on 
volunteers" reports of how well the statements of feelings/ reactions in the study describe 
them, it can be'surmised that their ability to empathically connect with clients is 
positively associated with their length of experience. 

The positive relationship between length of crisis volunteers' experience and 
amount of empathy found in the study indicates that as the length of experience increases 
for paraprofessionals trained to work in crisis intervention settings, their empathic skills, 
specifically perspective-taking and empathic understanding, increase. This finding 
suggests that crisis intervention and suicide prevention agencies might be well-served to 
make more attempts to retain their volunteers over extended periods. Gidron ( 1978) 
found that most volunteer "dropping out" occurs during the first six months of volunteer 
work. He attributed this to "the negative discrepancies found among short-term 
volunteers' concern [with] rewards pertaining to interaction with professional staff" 
( p. 23). Gidron asserted that short-term volunteers expect training, professional 
supervision, consultation opportunities and praise from the staff. Meeting short-term 
volunteers" expectations may well provide agencies with more long-term volunteers who, 
ultimately, are more effective than those with less experience. 

Although this study found a positive relationship between experience and 
empathy, the two measures of perspective-taking and empathic understanding were 
positively associated with each other, so a simultaneous multiple regression was 
performed in order to assess the unique contribution of each empathy measure. Results 



64 

of the multiple regression indicated that only the measure of empathic understanding 
significantly accounted for the variance in length of experience: that is. volunteers' levels 
of empathic understanding were a significant predictor of the number of months they 
were likely to volunteer at the crisis center. It should be noted that the relatively low 
internal consistency found on the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Cronbach's alpha 
measure) may have impacted the results and the fact that the Interpersonal Reactivity 
Index did not significantly account for the variance in length of experience. When both 
age and perspective-taking were controlled, empathic understanding still significantly 
accounted for the variance in the length of volunteer experience. 

Hypothesis 3 
The third hypothesis, that crisis center volunteers would have higher levels of 
altruistic motivation than the control group, was not supported. The literature regarding 
whether or not people volunteer for altruistic reasons or egoistic reasons is sparse. A few 
researchers have looked at motivations of volunteers in general (e.g., Clary & Snyder, 
1991; Fitch, 1987; Henderson. 1980, 1981, 1985; Sergent & Sedlacek, 1990; Wiehe & 
Isenhour, 1977), but fewer still have investigated the motivations of volunteers who work 
specifically in crisis intervention settings (e.g., Black & DiNitto. 1994; Clary & Miller, 
1 986; Clary & Orenstein, 1 991 ). Clary and Orenstein ( 1 991 ) found a direct relationship 
between altruistic motives for volunteering and the length of time spent as a volunteer. 
Their finding was not examined in the current study; however, it is interesting to note that 
the current study's results indicate that volunteers who work in a crisis intervention 
agency do not have significantly higher levels of altruistic motivation. In fact, the 



65 

volunteer group had the lowest mean on the Measure of Altruistic Motivation of the three 
groups examined. 

The volunteer group had significantly higher levels of empathy than the training 
or control groups. The literature suggests that there is a positive relationship between 
empathy and altruism (e.g., Amato, 1985; Eisenberg et al., 1989; Hoffman, 1976, 1981; 
Krebs, 1975; Rushton, i980), but clearly, the relationship is complex, since the 
volunteers in this study (who had relatively high levels of empathy) did not have higher 
levels of altruistic motivation. 

For all participants, the most frequently ranked reason they would (or do) 
volunteer at the Crisis Center was an altruistic reason ("a chance to help others"). The 
next four most frequently ranked choices were egoistic reasons, and the fifth most 
frequently ranked choice was a tie between an altruistic and an egoistic reason. 
Obviously, people volunteer for a variety of reasons, and one can speculate that the 
reasons chosen (whether altruistic or egoistic) do not seem to make a difference in the 
effectiveness (or the ability to provide empathy) of the volunteer. 

Consideration of Gender Differences 
Post-hoc analyses regarding gender differences on empathy and motivation 
suggested that there was a significant difference between males and females on the 
Relationship inventory and the Measure of Altruistic Motivation, with females displaying 
higher levels of both empathic understanding and altruistic motivation. The widely held 
stereotype that females are more empathic than males has led to numerous studies of 
gender differences in empathy (Lennon & Eisenberg, 1987). Overall, the conclusions of 



66 

reviews on gender differences in empathy have been inconsistent, primarily due to the 
fact that empathy has been operationaiized and measured in a variety of ways. 

Eisenberg and Lennon's 1 1983) meta-analysis of the data from 16 studies found 
that females scored higher than males on self-report questionnaire measures of emotional 
empathy, witfran effect size of .99! However, they asserted that the demand 
characteristics of self-report questionnaires render these findings less than conclusive, 
especially in light of much smaller differences or no differences found for other empathy 
measures (such as self-report in simulated emotional situations, facial/gestural and 
physiological indices). Based on the reviews of the literature regarding gender 
differences in empathy, a need for greater conceptual and methodological precision in 
future research is evident. Then, perhaps, the meaning of gender differences found in 
previous research will be clarified (Lennon & Eisenberg, 1987). 

Graham and lckes ( 1997) found no reliable gender differences in empathic 
accuracy. They suggested that gender differences found in other studies on empathy 
may, in fact, be more a matter of motivation than of ability. Males and females may not 
differ in their ability to empathize, but their gender-role socialization may provide them 
with more or less motivation to do so. 

In the current study, the fact that both empathy and altruism were measured by 
self-report questionnaires, suggests that, although gender differences were found, further 
investigation needs to occur in order to more fully understand the nature of those 
differences. Future research should consider both the demand characteristics of the 
assessment or measurement device as well as the motivational set within the participants. 



67 

Indeed, further clarification of this issue may be gained by investigating empathic 
motivation rather than ability. 

Study Limitations 

Since the study gathered information through the use of paper and pencil tests, 
one limitation of the study may have been the willingness and ability of individuals to 
respond at all and/ or respond in an accurate fashion. Participants were not required to 
produce responses and instead chose responses already listed on their questionnaire. 
Therefore, it is difficult to conclude with complete certainty that their responses during a 
crisis call would be similar. Indeed, a pencil and paper test cannot completely reflect a 
counselor's ability to paraphrase powerful emotions accurately and at the appropriate 
time. Also, the borderline internal consistency of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (.64 
in the current study) may have impacted the results. 

In addition, the study used psychology undergraduates as a control group, which 
constituted a nonequivaient control groups design. This suggests that pre-existing 
differences in attitudes, skills and motivations between the research groups may have 
existed. However, since many of the individuals who volunteer for this particular crisis 
intervention center were undergraduate psychology students (or others with similar 
demographics), the results are still somewhat generalizable. Also, participants in the 
study were not randomly assigned to the three study groups; therefore, no conclusions 
regarding causal relationships are drawn. 

Another limitation of the study was the relatively small sample size. There were 
only 27 participants in the training group, compared to 75 participants in the volunteer 
group and 46 in the control group. Perhaps the small sample size was one reason that no 



68 

significant difference was found between the control group mean and the training group 
mean on the Relationship Inventory empathy measure ( see Tables 4-5 and 4-6) even 
though s significant difference was found between the training group mean and the 
volunteer group mean. 

In order to keep data collection manageable, only participants from one crisis 
intervention center were tested. This study did not include outcome measures of 
effectiveness (e.g., caller satisfaction), but it is hoped that results can be used in 
conjunction with other outcome findings. Numerous factors go into creating an 
"effective" suicide prevention volunteer; this study only examined one of those factors 
(empathy) and the motivations behind volunteering in such a critical service area. 

Implications for Future Research 
The complex relationship between empathy and motivation in volunteers who 
provide suicide prevention services could also be investigated; specifically, further study 
is warranted to investigate whether or not an interaction between empathy and motivation 
exists in these volunteers. In addition, Barrett-Lennard (1981) pointed out that there is 
"wide intraindividual variation in empathic accuracy from one instance to another, 
occurring even in very similar situations" (p. 99). This suggests that future research on 
empathy as a generalized trait or ability would be a potentially important (and complex) 
area of study in its own right. Indeed, some people do consistently act more generous, 
helping and kind than others. Thomas and Fletcher ( 1 997) suggested that although 
studies are sparse, there is some evidence that implies "the existence of stable individual 
differences in the ability to make accurate empathic judgments, [although] the basis and 
nature of such abilities has yet to be determined" (p. 213). 



69 

Along these same lines, though there is evidence that empathy is related to 
therapeutic outcome (e.g., Orlinski, Grawe, & Parks, 1994; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967), the 
empathy studied was viewed as a situation-specific affective or cognitive process (or 
experiential) variable experienced by a therapist for the client. However, no research 
currently exisfs regarding the relationship between experiential and dispositional empathy 
(Duan & Hill, 1996). Future investigations might focus on how empathic processes 
possibly relate to dispositional empathy and therapeutic outcome. Another interesting 
avenue of study is expanding the research examining the empathy-altruism hypothesis to 
assess whether alternative explanations, such as oneness, can explain findings. 

It is not fully clear what processes take place when participants are told to engage 
in empathic perspective-taking. Specifically, "it is not known whether role-taking 
instructions also trigger the operation of other empathy-related processes, such as ... the 
use of elaborated cognitive networks" (Davis, 1994, pp. 207-208). Careful assessment 
and study of what participants actually do when told to engage in perspective-taking is a 
potentially rich source of information that would help clarify this empathy process. In 
addition, a deeper understanding of how personal and situational characteristics affect 
empathic processes (or even act as mediating variables) is another rich source of 
information for future study. For example, previous research has demonstrated that 
perspective-taking (or role- taking) is a reliable and accurate measure of empathy; 
however, little is known about how a person's disposition or how observer-target 
similarity affect that individual's ability to take on the perspective of another, since 
studies examining such characteristics have primarily focused on empathy outcomes. 
Duan's (2000) conclusion that situation-specific empathic experiences may vary with 



70 

situations exemplify this discrepancy between antecedents and processes. Duan suggests 
that any research on empathy or empathy-related behaviors should consider the 
characteristics of the situation where participants' empathic experiences are measured. 

Finally, as noted in the Introduction of this study, the fact that young white 
females are the most prevalent users of crisis intervention agencies suggests that research 
should be focused on analyzing the factors that are responsible for the reduction of 
suicide for this specific group when they use suicide prevention service agencies. It is 
interesting to note however, that young white females have overall lower suicide rates 
than other groups. 

Conclusion 
The Empathic Understanding subscale of the Relationship Inventory appears to be 
a good measure for empathy in crisis center volunteers. The Perspective- Taking subscale 
of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index may also prove to be an accurate measure of 
volunteer empathy, provided adequate internal consistency is found. The ability to 
demonstrate empathy has been shown to be a necessary component of crisis intervention 
counseling. Data indicate significant differences between fully-trained crisis intervention 
volunteers and either trainees or nontrained individuals on the examined measures of 
empathy. In addition, results of this study indicate that a volunteer's ability to provide 
empathic understanding increases with crisis intervention experience. A volunteer's 
reasons for choosing to work in a suicide prevention/crisis intervention agency are both 
altruistic and egoistic, and volunteers do not have higher levels of altruism compared to 
nonvolunteers. 



71 

Volunteers and paraprofessionals are often the backbone of crisis and suicide 
prevention agencies. This study is consistent with a pattern indicating that training as a 
volunteer and experience as a crisis counselor can increase volunteers' abilities to work 
with clients, thereby allowing crisis intervention and suicide prevention agencies the 
ability to provide more effective services to their community. Since it appears from the 
results of this study that volunteers are motivated to work in crisis intervention settings 
for both egoistic and altruistic reasons, agencies would be well-served to appeal to both 
of these motivations in recruiting and retaining volunteers. In this era of high suicide 
rates and increasing demands on crisis intervention/suicide prevention agencies, it seems 
imperative that volunteers working in this area be highly trained and supported in ways 
that encourage them to remain long-term; only then can we hope stop the trend of 
increasing suicide rates. 



APPENDIX A 
INFORMED CONSENT 



Principal Investigator: Michelle L. Barz, M.S. 

The purpose of this research project is to measure some personal variables, such 
as empathy and motivation, related to people's volunteer activities. The goal of this 
study is to learn the effect of crisis intervention training and experience on these 
variables. If you choose to participate, this study will take approximately 15-20 minutes 
of your time and will involve filling out a packet containing three brief questionnaires. 
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and you do not have to answer any 
question you do not wish to answer. 

Alachua County Crisis Center trainees and volunteers, as well as students in a UF 
psychology class, will receive a packet during the Fall 2000 semester. No compensation 
will be awarded for participation in this study. The study is not designed to benefit you 
directly, but it is hoped that it will provide valuable information for improving the 
effectiveness of crisis intervention volunteers. This research does not involve any known 
risks to you as a participant 

All personal information collected as part of this study will be held strictly 
confidential to the extent provided by law. Data collected will be coded so that no 
identifying information appears on your questionnaire. This signed consent form 
(required by the UF Institutional Review Board) will be placed in a sealed envelope and 
will not be consulted as part of the study. Results from this study will only be reported in 
general terms and will not identify any individuals. 

If you have any questions regarding procedure, please contact my supervisor, Dr. 
Paul G. Schauble, at the University of Florida Counseling Center, 301 Peabody Hall, 
392-1575. If you have any concerns about your rights as a research participant in this 



72 



73 

study, please contact UFIRB Office, Box 1 12250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 
32611-2250. 

I, (print name) freely volunteer to 

participate in the research project described above, conducted by Michelle Barz, a 

doctoral student in the Counseling Psychology Program, Department of Psychology, at 

the University of Florida. I have been informed in advance what my tasks will be and 

what procedures will be followed. 

I have read the description above and I understand that I have the right to 
withdraw consent and discontinue participation at any time. My signature below may be 
taken as my agreement to participate in the study and I acknowledge that I have received 
a copy of this description. 



Signature Date 

Last 4 digits of Social Security Number 



APPENDIX B 
INSTRUCTIONS 

After completing the information sheet below, please carefully read and follow 
the directions printed at the top of each of the following three brief questionnaires. Your 
responses will be kept confidential and will be reported only in general terms with no 
identifying information. Thank you for your participation in this study! 



Name (print): 



Age: 



Last 4 Digits of Social Security Number: 

Gender: 

Marital Status (check one): 

Single (never married) 

Divorced 

Separated 

_______ Widowed 

Remarried 

Country of Origin: 



Race (check one): 

African American 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

Caucasian 

________ Hispanic 

Native American 

" Other 



If you are a student, what is your major? 



Have you ever been enrolled in the volunteer training program at the Alachua Countv Crisis 
Center? Yes No 

If you are currently a volunteer, or have been one in the past, how long (to the nearest month) 
have you volunteered for Alachua County Crisis Center? 

Have you had additional or other training in counseling or crisis intervention? Yes No 
If yes, please describe: 



74 



APPENDIX C 
INSTRUMENTS 



In the space before each question, please write the number 0, 1,2, 3, or 4 to indicate how 
you feel using the following scale: (does not describe me well) to 4 (describes me very 
well). 



1 . Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in that 



person's place. 



2. If I'm sure I'm right about something, I don't waste much time listening to 



other people's arguments. 

3. I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look 

from their perspective. 

4. I believe that there are two sides to everv question and I try to look at them 

both. 

5. I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the other person's point of view. 

6. I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision. 

7. When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to "put myself in his/her shoes" for a 

while. 



15 



76 



The following is a list of possible reasons for volunteering at the Alachua County Crisis 
Center. As honestly and accurately as possible, please indicate your top five reasons for 
volunteering. If you are not a volunteer, indicate the top five reasons you most likely 
would have for volunteering at the Alachua County Crisis Center. Place a 1 before the 
item that represents your major reason for volunteering, a 2 before the next most 
important reason, and so on until your fifth most important reason. 

personal growth 

to acquire new skills, experience 

a chance to help others 

to acquire information about career possibilities 

to use special talents that I have 

to express concern to people in need 

to meet new people 

to increase my self-confidence 

to "repay" previous use of volunteer services 

to enhance my self-image 

academic internship/experiential learning 

a chance to give of myself without expecting some sort of "pay-off ' 

to learn about some of the social services available in Alachua County 

to increase my self-understanding 

to provide a good experience for people in need 

to help maintain a social service agencv 

to become more sensitive to others 

to develop better human relations skills 

to help those less fortunate than I 

to become a better citizen 

to gain skills which will be applicable to other situations 

to have fun and do something constructive at the same time 

to help build my resume 

other people (e.g., parents, spouse) want me to do volunteer work 

my friend (or friends) is (are) volunteering 



77 



Please do not write your name on this form. It will be coded anonymously and 
your answers used for research purposes only. Below are listed a variety of ways one 
person could feel or behave in relation to other people. Please carefully consider each 
statement with respect to whether you think it is true or not true about you. Mark each 
statement in the space next to the number according to how strongly you feel it is true or 
not true. Please mark every one. Write in +3, +2, + 1, or -1. -2, -3 to stand for the 
following answers: 

+3: Yes, I strongly feel that it is true. 
+2: Yes, I feel it is true. 

+ 1 : Yes, I feel that it is probably true, or more true than untrue. 
-1 : No, I feel that it is probably untrue, or more untrue than true. 
-2: No, I feel it is not true. 
-3: No, I strongly feel that it is not true. 



1 . 1 want to understand how others see things. 

2. 1 understand other people's words but do not know how they actually feel. 

3.1 nearly always know exactly what others mean. 

4. 1 look at what others do from my own point of view. 

5.1 usually sense or realize how others are feeling. 

6. What others say or do sometimes arouses feelings in me that prevent me from 



understanding them. 

7. Sometimes I think that others feel a certain way because that's the way I feel 

myself. 

8. I can tell what others mean even when they have difficulty in saying it. 

9. I usually understand the whole of what others mean. 

10. I ignore some of other people's feelings. 

11. I appreciate just how others' experiences feel to them. 

12. At times I think that others feel strongly about something and then it turns out 

that thev don't. 



78 



13. At the time I dont realize how touchv or sensitive others are about some of the 



things we discuss. 

14. I understand others. 

15. I often respond to others rather automatically, without taking in what thev are 

experiencing. 

16. When others are hurt or upset I can recognize just how they feel, without 

getting upset myself. 



LIST OF REFERENCES 
Adler. A, (1931), What life should mean to you , New York; Little. Brown. 

Agresti. A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences . Upper 
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Allen, N. J., & Rushton, J. P. (1983). Personality characteristics of community mental 
health volunteers: A review. Journal of Voluntary Action Research . 12. 36-49. 

Amato, P. R. (1985). An investigation of planned helping behavior. Journal of Research 
in Personality . ]9, 232-252. 

Barnett, V., & Lewis, T. (1978). Outliers in statistical data . New York: Wiley. 

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1959). Therapeutic personality change as a function of 
perceived therapist response. American Psychologist . JA 376. 

Barrett-Lennard. G. T. (1962). Dimensions of therapist response as causal factors in 
therapeutic change. Psychological Monographs . 76, No. 43, Whole no. 562. 

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1976). Empathy in human relationships: Significance, nature 
and measurement. Australian Psychologist . 11. 173-184. 

Barrett-Lennard. G. T (1978). The Relationship Inventory: Later development and 
adaptations. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology . 8, 68. 

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1981 ). The empathy cycle: Refinement of a nuclear concept. 
Journal of Counseling Psychology . 28, 91-100. 

Barrett-Lennard, G. T (1986). The Relationship Inventory now: Issues and advances in 
theory, method and use. In L. S. Greenberg & W. M. Pinsof (Eds.), The 
psychotherapeutic process: A research handbook (pp. 439-476). New York: 
Guilford Press. 

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1993). The phases and focus of empathy. British Journal of 
Medical Psychology . 66, 3-14. 

Barrett-Lennard, G. T., & Bergerson, S. G. (1975). Resource bibliography of reported 
studies usi ng the Relationship Inventory, part C . mimeo. University of Waterloo, 
Waterloo, Canada. 

79 



80 



Batson. C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever trulv altruistic? In L. Berkowitz 
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65-122). Orlando, 
FL: Academic Press. 

Batson. C. D. < 1991 ). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer . 
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Batson, C. D., Bolen, M. H.. Cross. J. A., & Neuringer-Beneficl, H. E. (1986). Where is 
the altruism in the altruistic personality? Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology. 50.212-220. 

Batson, C. D.. Dyck, J. L.. Brandt J. R, Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M. R., 
& Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the 
empathv-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 55, 

52-77. 

Black, B., & DiNitto, D. (1994). Volunteers who work with survivors of rape and 
battering: Motivations, acceptance, satisfaction, length of service, and gender 
differences. Journal of Social Service Research , 20, 73-97. 

Bohart, A. C., & Greenberg, L. S. (Eds.). (1997). Empathy reconsidered: New 
directions in psychotherapy . Washington, DC: American Psychological 
Association. 

Carey, J. C, Fox, E. A., & Spraggins. E. F. ( 1988). Replication of structure findings 
regarding the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Measurement and Evaluation in 
Counseling and Development , 21. 102-105. 

Carkhuff, R. R. ( 1968). Differential functioning of lay and professional helpers. Journal 
of Counseling Psychology . 15. 117-126. 

Carkhuff, R. R. (1969). Helping and human relations. Vols. I and II . New York: Holt, 
Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. 

Carkhuff, R. R., Kratochvil, D., & Friel, T. (1968). The effects of professional training: 
The communication and discrimination of facilitative conditions. Journal of 
Counseling Psychology . 15, 68-74. 

Carothers, J. E., & Inslee, L. J. ( 1974). Level of empathic understanding offered by 
volunteer telephone services. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 21, 274-276. 

Centers for Disease Control. (1985). Suicide surveillance, 1970-1980 . Atlanta, GA: 
Author. 



81 

Chlopan, B. E., McCain, M. L., Carboneil, J. L., & Hagen, R. L. (1985). Empathy: 
Review of available measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 48, 
635-653. 

Clary, E. G., & Miller, J. (1986). Socialization and situational influences on sustained 
altruism. Child Development. 57. 1358-1369. 

Clary, E. G., & Orcnstein, L. (1991). The amount and effectiveness of help: The 
relationship of motives and abilities to helping behavior. Personality and Social 
Psychology Bulletin . J7, 58-64. 

Clary, E. G., & Snyder. M. (1991). A functional analysis of altruism and prosocial 

behavior: The case of volunteensm. Review of Personality and Social Psychology. 
12,119-148. 

Coonfield. T. J., Nida, R. A., & Gray, B. (1976). Research report: The assessment of 
telephone crisis workers. Crisis Intervention . 7, 2-9. 

Daigle, M. S., & Mishara, B. L. (1995). Intervention styles with suicidal callers at two 
suicide prevention centers. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior . 25, 261-275. 

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. 
JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology , 10, 85. 

Davis, M. H. ( 1983a). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a 
multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 44. 113- 
126. 

Davis, M. H. ( 1983b). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and 
helping: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality . 51. 167-184. 

Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychologica l approach. Madison. WI: 
Brown & Benchmark. 

Delworth, U., Rudow, E. H., & Taub, J. (1972). Crisis center/hotline: A guidebook to 
beginning and operating . Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. 

Duan, C. (2000). Being empathic: The role of motivation to empathize and the nature of 
target emotions. Motivation and Emotion . 24, 29-49. 

Duan, C.,& Hill, C.E. (1996). The current state of empathy research. Journal of 
Counseling Psychology . 43, 261-274. 

Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. 
Psychological Bulletin . 94. 100-131. 



82 

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987a). Empathy and prosocial behavior. Psychological 
Bulletin . 101. 91-119. 

Eisenberg, N., & Miller. P. A. (1987b). Empathy, sympathy, and altruism: Empirical 
and conceptual links. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its 
development ( pp. 292-316). New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Eisenberg, N., Miller, P. A., Shaller, M., Fabes, R. A., Fultz, J., Shell, R., & Shea, C. L. 
(1989). The role of sympathy and altruistic personality traits in helping: A 
reexamination. Journal of Personality , 57 , 41-67. 

Elkins, R. I.. & Cohen, C. R. (1982). A comparison of the effects of prejob training and 
job experience on nonprofessional telephone crisis counselors. Suicide and Life- 
Threatening Behavior . 12, 84-89. 

Ellis, S. J. (1978). American traditions of volunteerism and service- learning: The 
twentieth century. Synergist . Spring , 37-39. 

Ellis, S. J. (1985). Research on volunteerism: What needs to be done. Journal of 
Voluntary Action Research. 14, 1 1-14. 

Feshbach. N. D. (1982). Sex differences in empathy and social behavior in children. In 
N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 315-338). New 
York: Academic Press. 

Fitch, R. T. ( 1987). Characteristics and motivations of college students volunteering for 
community service. Journal of College Student Personnel . 28, 424-43 1 . 

Fowler, D. E., & McGee, R. K. ( 1973). Assessing the performance of telephone crisis 
workers: The development of a technical effectiveness scale. In D. Lester & G. 
Brockopp (Eds.), Crisis intervention and counseling by telephone . Springfield, LL: 
Charles C. Thomas. 

France, K. (1975). Evaluation of lay volunteer crisis telephone workers. American 
Journal of Community Psychology , 3, 197-200. 

Frankish. C J. (1994). Crisis centers and their role in treatment: Suicide prevention 
versus health promotion. Death Studies . J_8, 327-339. 

Genther, R. (1974). Evaluating the functioning of community-based hotlines. 
Professional Psychology . 5, 409-414. 

Gidron, B. (1978). Volunteer work and its rewards. Volunteer Administration , 11, 
18-32. 

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence . New York: Bantam. 



83 



Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence . New York: Bantam. 

Graham, T., & Ickes, W. ( 1997). When women's intuition isn't greater than men's. In 
W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy . New York: Guilford Press. 

Gray, B., Nida, R. A., & Coonfield, T. J. (1976). Empathic Listening Test: An 

instrument for the selection and training of telephone crisis workers. Journal of 
Community Psychology , 4, 199-205. 

Gurman, A. S. (1977). The patient's perception of the therapeutic relationship. In A. S. 
Gurman and A. M. Razin (Eds.), Effective psychotherapy: A handbook of research 
(pp. 503-543). New York: Pergamon. 

Gutierrez, P. M, Osman, A., Kopper, B. A., Barrios, F. X., & Bagge, C. L. (2000). 
Suicide risk assessment in a college student population. Journal of Counseling 
Psychology, 47, 403-4 13. 

Hall, J. A., Davis, M. H., & Connelly, M. (2000). Dispositional empathy in scientist and 
practitioner psychologists: Group differences and relationship to self-reported 
professional effectiveness. Psychotherapy, 37, 45-56. 

Hart, L. E., & King, G. D. (1 979). Selection versus training in the development of 
paraprofessionals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 235-241. 

Hart, T. (1999). The refinement of empathy. Journal of Humanistic Psychology , 39, 
111-125. 

Henderson, K. A. (1980). Programming volunteerism for happier volunteers. Parks and 
Recreation . September , 61-64. 

Henderson, K. A. (1981). Motivations and perceptions of volunteerism and a leisure 
activity. Journal of Leisure Research , 13 , 208-218. 

Henderson, K. A. (1985). Issues and trends in volunteerism. Journal of Physical 
Education, Recreation, and Dance , 56, 30-32. 

Hobfoll, S. E. (1980). Personal characteristics of the college volunteer. American 
Journal of Community Psychology , 8, 503-506. 

Hoffman. M. L. (1976). Empathy, role-taking, guilt, and development of altruistic 

motives. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research 
and social issues (pp. 124-143). New York: Holt, Rinehart. 

Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. 
Psychological Bulletin . 54, 712-722. 



84 



Hoffman, M. L. (1981). The development of empathy. In J. P. Rushton & R. M. 
Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social, personality, and 
developmental perspectives (pp. 41-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Hoffman, M. L. ( 1982). Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt. In 
N. Eisenberg (Ed)., The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 281-313). New 
York: Academic Press. 

Hoffman, ML. (1984). Interaction of affect and cognition in empathy. In C. E. Izard, J. 
Kagan & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition and behavior (pp. 103-13 1). 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Hoffman, M. L. (1987). The contribution of empathy to justice and moral development. 
In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 47-80). 
New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and 
justice . New York: Cambridge University' Press. 

Homes, C. B., & Howard, M. E. (1980). Recognition of suicide lethality factors by 

physicians, mental health professionals, ministers, and college students. Journal of 
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 383-387. 

Ickes, W. (Ed.). (1997). Empathic accuracy . New York: Guilford Press. 

Ickes, W. (1993). Empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality , 61, 587-610. 

Ickes, W., Bissonnette. V.. Garcia, S., & Stinson, L. (1990). Implementing and using the 
dyadic interaction paradigm. In C. Hendrick & M. Clark (Eds. ), Review of 
personality and social psychology: Research methods in personality and social 
psychology (Vol. II, pp. 16-44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Ickes, W., Marangoni, C, & Garcia, S. (1997). Studying empathic accuracy in a 
clinically relevant context. In W. Ickes, (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 2 82-3 10). 
New York: Guilford Press. 

Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., & Garcia. S. (1990). Naturalistic social 

cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology . 59, 730-742. 

Ickes, W., & Tooke, W. (1988). The observational method: Studying the interaction of 
minds and bodies. In S. Duck, D. Hay, S. Hobfoll, W. Ickes & B. Montgomery 
(Eds.), The handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions 
(pp. 79-97). Chichester, England: Wiley. 



85 

Kaiafat, J., Boroto, D. R., & France, K. (1979). Relationships among experience level 
and value orientation and the performance of paraprofessional telephone 
counselors. American Journal of Community Psychology , 7, 167-180. 

Kann, L., Kinchen, S. A., Williams, B. I., Ross, J. G., Lowry, R., Hill, C. V. ; Grunbaum, 
J. A., Blumson, P. S.. Collins, J. L., & Kolbe, L. J. (1998, August 14). Youth risk 
behavior surveillance-United States. 1997. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 
Report: CDC Surveillance Summaries , 47, 1-89. 

Knickerbocker, D., & McGee, R. (1973). Clinical effectiveness of nonprofessional and 
professional telephone workers in a crisis intervention centre. In D. Lester & G. 
Brockopp (Eds.), Crisis intervention and counseling bv telephone (pp.298-309). 
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. 

Knott, E. C, & Range, L. M. (1998). Content analysis of previously suicidal college 
students' experiences. Death Studies , 22 , 171-180. 

Krebs, D. L. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology. 32. 1134-1146. 

Kurtz, R. R., & Grummon, D. L. (1972). Different approaches to the measurement of 
therapist empathy and their relationship to therapy outcomes. Journal of Consulting 
and Clinical Psychology , 39, 106-115. 

Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences in empathy and 

sympathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 
195-217). New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Lemer, M. J. (1982). The justice motive in human relations and the economic model of 
man: A radical analysis of facts and fictions. In V. J. Derlega & J. Grzelak (Eds.), 
Cooperation and helping behavior: Theories and research (pp. 249-278). New 
York: Academic Press. 

Lester, D. (1993). Challenge in preventing suicide. Crisis , 14, 187-1849. 

Linehan, M. M. (1997). Validation and psychotherapy. In A. C. Bohart & L. S. 
Greenberg (Eds.), Empathy reconsidered: New directions in psychotherapy . 
Washington, D. C: American Psychological Association. 

Litman, R. E., Farberow, N. L., Shneidrnan, E. S., Helig, S. M., & Kramer, J. A. (1965). 
Suicide-prevention telephone service. Journal of the Amefican Medical 
Association , 192 , 107-111. 

Manstead, A. (1992). Gender differences in emotion. In A. Gale & M. W. Eysenck 
(Eds.), Handbook of individual differences: Biological perspectives . London: 
Wiley. 



86 



Marangom, C, Garcia, S., Ickes, W., & Teng, G. (1995). Empathic accuracy in a 

clinically relevant setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 68, 854- 
869. 

Maris, R. W. (1992). The relationship of nonfatal suicide attempts to completed 
suicides. In R. W. Maris, A. L. Berman, J. T. Maltsberger & R. I. Yufit (Eds.), 
Assessment and prediction of suicide (pp. 362-380). New York: Guilford Press. 

McGee. R., & Jennings, B. (1973). Ascending to "lower" levels: The case for 
nonprofessional crisis workers. In D. Lester & G. Brockopp (Eds.), Crisis 
intervention and counseling by telephone (pp. 287-297). Springfield, IL: Charles 
C. Thomas. 

Miller, H. L., Coombs, D. W., Leeper, J. D., & Barton, S. N. (1984). An analysis of the 
effects of suicide prevention facilities on suicide rates in the united states. 
American Journal of Public Health , 74, 340-343. 

Miller, W. R, Hedrick, K. E., & Orlofsky, D. R. (1991). The Helpful Responses 
Questionnaire: A procedure for measuring therapeutic empathy. Journal of 
Clinical Psychology, 47, 444-448. 

Miller, L., Powell. G., & Seltzer, J. (1990). Determinants of turnover among volunteers. 
Human Relations . 43, 901-917. 

Neimeyer, R. A., & Pfeiffer, A. M. (1994). Evaluation of suicide intervention 
effectiveness. Death Studies , 18, 1 3 1 - 1 66. 

Newman. F. (1985). Higher education and the American resurgence . Princeton, NJ: 
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 

O'Carroll, P. W., Berman, A. L., Maris, R. W., Moscicki, E. K., Tanney, B. L., & 
Silverman, M. M. (1996). Beyond the Tower of Babel: A nomenclature for 
suicidology. Suicide and Life- Threatening Behavior . 26, 237-252. 

O'Donnell, J. M., & George, K. ( 1977). The use of volunteers in a community mental 
health center emergency and reception service: A comparative study of 
professional and lay telephone counseling. Community Mental Health Journal , i, 
3-12. 

Okun, M. A., Shepard, S. A., & Eisenberg, N. (2000). The relations of emotionality and 
regulation to dispositional empathy-related responding among volunteers-in- 
training. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 367-382. 

Orbach, I., Bar- Joseph, H, & Dror, N. (1990). Styles of problem solving in suicidal 
individuals. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior , 20 , 56-64. 



87 



Orlinski. D. E.. Grawe. KL, & Parks, B. K. (1994). Process and outcome in 

psychotherapy - noch einmal. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook 
of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed). New York: Wiley. 

Patterson, C. H. (1984). Empathy, warmth, and genuineness in psychotherapy: A 
review of reviews. Psychotherapy , 21, 43 1 -438. 

Piliavin, J. A, Dovidio, J. F„ Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D., Ill (1981). Emergency 
intervention . New York: Academic Press. 

Polenz, D. D., & Verdi. P. (1977). Differences in the therapeutic functioning of 
paraprofessionals with varying lengths of experience. Journal of Clinical 
Psychology. 33, 1115-1119. 

Probert, J. S., & FogeL J. (1997, April). More-Tensions: Training Crisis Center 
Volunteers . Workshop presented at the American Association of Suicidology 
conference, Memphis, TN. 

Range, L. M., & Knott, E. C. (1997). Twenty suicide assessment instruments: 
Evaluation and recommendations. Death Studies , 21, 25-58. 

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality 
change. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 21, 95-103. 

Rosenbaum, A., & Calhoun, J. F. (1977). The use of the telephone hotline in crisis 
intervention: A review. Journal of Community Psychology , 5, 325-339. 

Rudd, M. D. ( 1989). The prevalence of suicide ideation among college students. 
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior , 19, 173-183. 

Rushton, J. P. (1980). Altruism, socialization and society . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 
Prentice-Hall. 

Seely, M. (1992). Hotlines -- our heritage and challenges. Crisis , 13, 14-15. 

Sergent, M. T., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1990). Volunteer motivation across student 

organizations: A test of person-environment fit theory. Journal of College Student 
Development, 31, 255-261. 

Shneidman, E. S., Farberow, N. L., & Litman, R. E. (1961). Introduction. InN. L. 
Farberow & E. S. Shneidman (Eds.), The cry for help (pp. 6-18). New York: 
McGraw-Hill. 

Snodgrass, S. (1992). Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 62, 154-158. 



88 



Staub, E. (1974). Helping a distressed person: Social, personality, and stimulus 

determinants. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology 
(Vol. 7, pp. 293-341). New York: Academic Press. 

Staub, E. (1987). Commentary on Part I. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy 
and its development (pp. 103-1 15). New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Stein, D. ML, &*Lambert, M. J. (1984). Telephone counseling and crisis intervention: A 
critical review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 101-126. 

Staffer, D. L. (1968). An investigation of positive behavioral change as a function of 
genuineness, non-possessive warmth, and empathic understanding . Unpublished 
doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University. 

Strayer, J. (1987). Affective and cognitive perspectives on empathy. InN. Eisenberg & 
J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 218-244). New York: 
Cambridge University Press. 

Tapp, J. T., & Spanier, D. (1973). Personal characteristics of volunteer phone 
counselors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41. 245-250. 

Thomas, G., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (1997). Empathic accuracy in close relationships. In 
W. Ickes (Ed.). Empathic accuracy (pp. 194-217). New York: Guilford Press. 

Truax, C. B., & Carkhuff, R. R. (1967). Toward effective counseling and psychotherapy: 
Training and practice . Chicago: Aldine. 

Truax, C. B., & Lister, J. L. (1971). Effects of short-term training upon accurate empathy 
and non-persuasive warmth. Counselor Education and Supervision . Winter , 120- 
125. 

Truax, C. B., & Mitchell, K. M. (1971). Research on certain therapist interpersonal 
skills in relation to process and outcome. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), 
Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change ( 1st ed.). New York: Wiley. 

U. S. Bureau of the Census. (1996). Statistical abstract of the united states: 1996. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Walsh, W. B., & Betz, N. E. (1990). Tests and assessment (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, 
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 

Wiehe, V. R., & Isenhour, L. (1977). Motivation of volunteers. Journal of Social 
Welfare . 4, 73-79. 



89 

Wolber, G., & McGovem, T. V. (1977). A three component model for the evaluation of 
telephone counselor effectiveness. Crisis Intervention. 8, 36-55. 



BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Michelle Lee Barz was born January 30, 1967 in Colorado. She graduated from 
Pomona (CO) High School in 1985 and then attended Rice University, in Houston, 
Texas, on a track scholarship. Michelle received her Bachelor of Arts degree from Rice 
University in 1990 with a double major in Psychology and English. She graduated with a 
Master of Science degree in Counseling Psychology from the University of Florida in 
1994, the same time she was newly pregnant with her first child. Her thesis was entitled, 
"The Impact of Math Anxiety on the Behavior of Academically Talented Students." 

Michelle is a part-time faculty member at Metropolitan State College of Denver, 
She also teaches relationship and marriage classes, and does leadership training and 
development. Michelle currently resides outside of Denver, Colorado with her husband 
Stuart and their two children. 



90 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to 
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



I2M(U 



Paul G. Schauble, Chair 
Professor of Psychology 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to 
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 




Martin Heesacker 
Professor of Psychology 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to 
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 




Barbara Probert 

Clinical Associate Professor Emeritus of 

Psychology 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to 
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



M. David Miller 

Professor of Education Psychology 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to 
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 

Tt /^c — 

yt £ 

Marshall Knudson 

Courtesy Assistant Professor of Psychology 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to 
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope andmjajity, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 




Robert C. Ziller 
Professor of Psychology 



This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of 
Psychology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and 
was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of 
Philosophy. 



May 2001 



Dean, Graduate School 




.62<?lp 



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 



3 1262 08555 3526